 |
 |
sorry, terry, you just don't get it. nobody i know would claim that everything that goes on in design processes can be articulated. there are even more basic examples of linguistic limitations such as human face recognition. it would be difficult to describe the face of someone familiar to you for someone else to pick that person out of a crowd -- unless that person has some unique features in addition to its face. you still confuse theory with the theorized by saying: "it is inappropriate to view theorising about design activity primarily through a 'language/communication' lens." i asked you before if you could give me any example of a theory that does not use language, mathematics, or graphical devices. of course you can't do it. on this list, we do not exchange design activities but we write about them (unless we get trapped in epistemological nonsense). klaus -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence Love Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 2:34 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Wicked Problems Hi Klaus, It's a matter of 'necessary and sufficient'. Language doesn't provide 'necessary and sufficient' explanation of design activity. Hence, it is inappropriate to view theorising about design activity primarily through a 'language/communication' lens. Similarly, viewing humans as unique creative beings is as false as a basis for understanding and theorising about design activity. Humans are primarily routine, 'robotic' beings in which creativity is usually an illusion. Creativity, like will, is rare - and, from experience, rare in artists. Best wishes, Terry -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Klaus Krippendorff Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012 3:29 AM To: Dr Terence Love Subject: Re: Wicked Problems terry, your response continues to reveal your blind spot. you once claimed that design theory had nothing to do with language. i challenged you to show me a theory that is free of language - informal, mathematical, or graphical. you didn't respond and i guess because you couldn't. (i couldn't either) now you again claim that i inappropriately privilege language in stating what a problem is. that claim and indeed everything we say on this list takes place in language. it seems that you see language as transparent, invisible, blanked out while speaking. i know, you are not the only one who does this. but communicating of design becomes difficult if one participant is blatantly unaware of what he or she is doing. klaus -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim Smithers Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:22 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Wicked Problems Dear Terry, Notions of what is right and wrong are not what is needed here, I think. To ask or say what or who is right or wrong serves only to setup a false debate and establish ill-founded distinctions. Disagreeing with what Klaus says and/or the stance from which he says it does not make him or what he says wrong, nor right. It should make it interesting, thought provoking, and useful. Having a different and alternative point of view or explanation also doesn't make Klaus and what he says wrong. It does mean, however, that you need engage with what Klaus says (on this occasion) and carefully explain how you're alternative explanation differs from what he says and why, and how this leads us to something interesting and useful. Argument by assertion and empty value judgements won't do this. Best regards, Tim =============================================== On Dec 12, 2012, at 09:27 , Terence Love wrote: > Hi Tim, > I would agree, if Klaus was right. > Klaus privileges language and frames his view of wicked problems > through a language lens regardless of whether it is appropriate or not. > The position described in Klaus' 6 points also depends on a particular > view of what it is to be human. > I've been suggesting there is a different explanation that goes beyond. > Best wishes, > terry > ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------