 |
 |
Dear Keith, Very nice! I see, however, a need to grossly complicate your scheme. I think there are only two general verbs in English, not just one: to do; and, to be. And, I think there are only two general nouns in English, not just one: a thing; and, (some) stuff. So, combining your verb, to do, with stuff, we could have, some done stuff. Then, following your line, designing becomes the done stuff for (some) done stuff. But I'd also like to employ my second verb in this to say, designing might then be understood as the done stuff for (some) to be done stuff. And, because I always prefer to see everything as process, rather than as states and transitions, I'd be quite happy for the done stuff to be input for the done stuff for (some more/new) to be done stuff. This is, I think, how we become aware of the possibility of producing and re-producing difference. This way we avoid the need to appeal to a God or the Gods (are they things, by the way?), and we capture the always on-going never quite ending quality of designing (though it often has to stop, but not for designing reasons) ... out of which come designs, sometimes, at least. Best regards, Tim =============================================== On Apr 3, 2013, at 23:51 , Keith Russell wrote: > Dear Kari-Hans, > > Maybe there is only one general verb in English = to do > > Maybe there is only one general noun in English = a thing > > If we put the two together we get = a done thing > > This sounds like the start of the noun you are looking for. > > The Design of something might then be seen as = the done thing of a done thing. > > Except this would allow for the outputs as well as the inputs so we might need = the pre-done thing of a done thing. > > Which also allows for outputs but such outputs would be conditioned by the prior aspects of the pre-done and hence a primary level of intention would be implied (the machine intends to make screw because it was intended to make screws - there is a trail back to a design). > > Of course we now have the problems of seeds and trees and then on to God. > > If we allow that there might be an originary moment of design when someone first became conscious that planting the seeds on one plant rather than another led to a significantly different outcome, then we can allow that the concept of a designed world is the origin of design and not the other way around. Design only become design when we are aware of the possibility of producing and re-producing difference. > > It is not tragedy unless the hero knowingly acts to bring about the tragic fate. > > cheers > > keith ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------