 |
 |
Susann, I appreciate your comment. However, I think I provided a qualification on my use of the term "semantics." I am not referring to "product semantics," or the semiotic version of semantics, or the meanings that are associated with Carnap in his semantic investigations, or many other meanings of the term. I am making a distinction between the investigation and interpretation of what a designer or design theorist or any other person writes about design and the investigation of design itself as a phenomenon in the world. It is, indeed, possible to conduct an inquiry through commentary on the work of another--there are powerful examples of this in some medieval commentaries on the works of the ancients. However, one often finds that a young doctoral student proposes to investigate a novel reading of a major text in our field--or in other fields. Such students often do not understand, at an early stage, that such a reading, by itself, is not adequate as inquiry. Inquiry extends beyond the words of one or another writer and reaches into the subject to which the words refer. The difference may seem subtle, but there is a real difference. In medieval philosophy there is a very valuable distinction made between first and second intentions. This is the distinction that I am employing here. Inquiry is a matter of first intention, learning how to read an author is a matter of second intentionality. Much of our discussion (in ordinary academic discourse and in this list) is second intentional--clarifying the meaning of terms, arguing over interpretations of terminology, and such. What I enjoy about this list is that the proportion of first intentionality is somewhat higher than one often finds in ordinary academic discourse. In other words, this list sometimes raises problems of inquiry that are very interesting and not easily answered simply by accepted terminology. In my opinion, learning how to read an author carefully is a preliminary step toward inquiry, not inquiry itself. Unfortunately, I find that our educational systems in various parts of the world place great stress on second intentionality and seldom help students get beyond the accepted theories of a field, so that they may discover first intentional questions. How we make meaning in design is, indeed, a first intentional question. But when we treat that question primarily by interpreting existing theories--in essence, simply clarifying for ourselves what a particular theorist of meaning has to say--we are not engaged in inquiry. It may advance our personal understanding, but it does not necessarily lead to new knowledge about the world. There is a difference between what is better known to us and what is better known in the world. I think this is a distinction that is worth bearing in mind. Regards, Dick Richard Buchanan Professor and Head School of Design Carnegie Mellon University %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%