 |
 |
Dear all, Many members of this group treat language as a secondary activity when talking about a primary activity. That is, 'talk about cup making' is not needed in order to evidence the making of a cup; one can simply make a cup. If one were to do a running commentary whilst making a cup, the commentary might be of interest and it might illuminate the activity but it would be a secondary activity. In this sense, language is then better or worse according to its ability to describe or define the process of making a cup. Making the cup retains its priority. The process could be describe in any language, given enough time and struggle. Why, because the making of a cup is a distinct activity that has been concretised in time and space. Language can point to the cup. For others on this list, language is a primary activity. The cups they make are made of words. They design thoughts in the medium of words. The cups they make with words are concretised in the words that make-up the cups. Secondary accounts of these word-cups could be made in any language but the actual word-cups could not be made in any other example of language any more than an actual instance of a physical cup could be made in other materials and be actually identical. All this is first year stuff but it keeps emerging in our disputations. 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------