 |
 |
To everyone who has followed the design and intention thread: As I conclude my participation for awhile I would like to clarify my position and offer what I think is a viable basis for a contemporary philosophy of design. First, despite its one objective truth (that we can not entirely know what goes on in the mind of others) I think the philosophical stance of autopesis is inadequate for the consideration of "living systems". It seems quaint and almost Skinnerian (behaviorally biased) in its emphasis on external behqavioral evidence. Similarly, importing the concept of "intentional fallacy" from the field of literary criticism to design is inappropriate because it denies understanding of the motivations and background of the author/designer in favor of considering their products as "objects" in the "market" of other formal expressions - another product of its era. I believe Daniel Dennett has a better approach that is more viable as the basis for a philosophy of design in his conception of Intentional Stance, Design Stance and Physical (I broaden this to Empirical) Stance. The intentional stance is concerned with motivation, need and desire, the design stance with finding the appropriate form for a situation and the Empirical stance in experiencing, testing and valuing its realization. (That thread of intentional causality again.) For those interested in more detail check my paper on Intentionality and Design in the Proceedings from the DRS Common Ground Conference. or any of Daniel Dennetts' many books including Intentional Stance, Kinds of Minds, Consciousness Explained, Freedom Evolves, etc. I had said: We mentalists (my meaning) are interested in what is at work inside that is so unknowable from the outside. Of course I realize that we will never know anything but an autopoetic experience because everyone is uniquely natured and nurtured , but we will get closer to what a living system is if we include the workings of the embodied brain in our considerations as Terry has been encouraging for some time.