Print

---

Dear Susan, David and others

i apologize for mixing Susans' posts and David's.
and i accept that Susan and David may diagree with my interpretation of their
posts.
and i also understand the inherent danger of writing 'on the fly'.

but i am sorry that i disagree with Susan that i have taken the quote out of
context.
to me, the discussion between Susan and David (Durling) began with the terms
'intuitive and 'systematic',
and concluded with 'traditional' and 'intellectual' showed a short of care for
the current discourse on the nature
of designing. a care that i would expect from two PhDs so involved in design
and from whom i look up to.
but then again, i understand that was my own expectation. if i have imposed
myself on others, i apologize.

rosan


"Susan M. Hagan" wrote:

> Dear Rosan,
>
> It's good to talk to you. Here's what I think.
>
> While we must be careful with words, words have limits. Finding just the
> right words as we speak "on the fly," especially in a format like email
> where lots of descriptive and explanatory text makes reading very tiresome,
> is the problem we all share. Rich internal representations cannot always
> match limited external speech. But honestly, the reader can also create
> confusion where none exists. I do feel that you are taking the quote out of
> context.
>
> You honor me by attributing David's words to me, but I do share his
> sentiment. As I see it, the issue is not a "smart" "dumb" dichotomy. I
> think that was David's point entirely. The intuitive is equal to the
> "intellectual." The collaboration he presents, one that I agree with,
> represents a complex system that can be verbalized and shared, versus a
> complex system that cannot be verbalized, and therefore is more difficult
> to share. Disciplines depend on shared knowledge. But they can't survive on
> that alone. As you point out, what is later shared must often begin with
> what can only be internally felt.
>
> It would be nice if the language gave us better words.
>
> Susan