 |
 |
It's difficult at this moment in the various threads for me to decide which heading best suits what I want to say, and what I would like to ask. I think in some respects the 'Disingenuous Building Question' thread has run its course, though many things could be said further on that. I also suspect that some correspondence between me and Cameron that was off-list, was actually intended to be on list. If that was the case, my apologies. I just pressed the return button. Anyway, no matter, I think most of it was footnotes (at least on my part). Despite some reservations, however, I'm going to stick with the ''Disingenuous Building Question' thread in the interests of some continuity. But I would like to pick up on a few points arising from the excellent posts by Ken, GK, Eduardo, Cameron Gunnar and Chris that take us in other directions. First some thoughts on dialogue, by which I mean a type of joint action between people. Despite some of the attempts on the list to make a clear distinction between my search for clarity and others search for the poetic, I would not want to rule out of order any particular dialogue type, nor do I think it is fruitful to think of one meta or default dialogue that has the capacity to transcend all. There I would stand shoulder to shoulder with all those who want to stand in defence of Heidegger. There is a time of day for all types of dialogue, even (shock horror!) the poetic: late at night to illuminate the dark corners of our world, early in the morning to give purpose to the day, in the afternoon to warm ones love, and in the evening to ponder the mysteries of life. Poetry provides these things and more. It can be a great comfort to recite poetry at difficult moments, such as when all the lifeboats have gone and the ship is sinking. Sadly though, whatever revelation, solace or transcendence poetry provides, on its own, it does not stop the ship from sinking. That requires a different type of dialogue, a different type of joint action. In a metaphorical sense, I see our current environmental circumstance as akin to that of people on a sinking ship. But, to extend the metaphor just a little further, and contrary to what some of you may think, I do not feel the need to chuck my copy of Shakespeare over the side, so that we can sink more slowly.(apologies to Ken). These are not either/or (this dialogue type/or that dialogue type) circumstances. Life, as long as it lasts, remains rich in many different dialogues, both coexisting and competing with each other. We judge and sometimes misjudge the appropriateness of the moment for a particular type of dialogue. In my view, and going to the heart of my argument with the DPP editor, I think misjudges the moment, and in doing so remains incoherent and inaccessible to many who want to take part in intelligent and thoughtful dialogue on our current circumstances. If there is anything disingenuous to talk about it is the contrast between the explicitly stated need that DPP claims to have identified and it's choice of dialogue for meeting that need. I quote: > Design Philosophy Papers (DPP) comes from a longstanding desire to > gain greater recognition for the study of design by the > intellectual community at large, as well as our frustration with > the market-driven conservatism of design publishing. It aims to > break away from the idea of design as a specialist interest, as > well as rejecting the simplistic and debased way design arrives > before the public via both old and new media — frequently merely as > style or technics. It also comes with a passion to communicate, > share and argue for a much, much greater general recognition of > importance of design and ‘the designed’ as managed and unwitting > agents of force and power. so. Note the identified audience: 'the intellectual community at large' Note the intention: 'break away from the idea of design as a specialist interest' Note the commitment: 'a passion to communicate, share and argue for a much, much greater general recognition of importance of design' I don't think one needs to go on and on about this, but the choice of dialogue type made by the editors of DPP, and which pervades a lot of its content, is at odds with these totally worthy and important aims. I have more to say on matters of clarity, but I have taken enough of your time for the moment. David -- blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog web: http://www.communication.org.au Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA CEO • Communication Research Institute • • helping people communicate with people • Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795 Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640 60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068