 |
 |
Dear friends and colleagues The more I think about this thread, the more important I think it is. In the recent (impressive) discussions we seem to be polarising (the need for) generic and specific definitions of the term 'context'. This becomes confusing partly because recursion develops in the process of designers legitimately developing and claiming their own context of the word 'context' but expect it to be adopted in other contexts. The reason I agree with Chris Rust about upholding the usefulness of a non-specific use of 'context' is not just to be pedantic about the philosophy of language. In my view it also relates to religious and scientific ideas that claim that the universe is singular and that everything in it is co-dependent. In other words - implicitly - everything affects everything else. If this assumption is reasonable then designers need to realise that nothing is trivial and that small adjustments can lead to much larger effects. This has ecological implications. In the past we have seen the development of extraordinarily focused specialisms which needed to claim dangerously narrow contexts to ensure their survival as disciplines or methods. This has led to the most horrifying results - principally in military science and the techocentric industries which they spawned. Sometimes it's better to remain [de]focused on the trees rather than desperately see[k]ing the 'wood'. John Wood (programme director) MA Design Futures Goldsmiths' College, University of London Lewisham Way, New Cross London SE14 6NW UK ________________________________________________ WEB: http://futures.gold.ac.uk/ VOICE: +44 (0) 207 919 7794 FAX: +44 (0) 207 919 7783 ________________________________________________ [editor] "The Virtual Embodied: practice | presence | technology" now available from Routledge, NY & London. ISBN 0-415-16026-X %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%