Dear David and all
Thanks for your reply and I learned much. It also helped me to see
better what I was really thinking.
> Therefore designing precedes theories about design both logically and
> chronologically. Theories 'about' design necessarily proceed designing. They
> are a kind of post factum analysis. Such theories can only explain what
> designers have done. Can such theories be used to guide designers in the
> future? Possibly, but there is no *necessary* logical requirement that they
> do so. What is clear is that such theories are parasitic on design and
> designers but they may not necessarily be symbiotic with designing
> Thus there may well be no dynamic relationship between the two types of
> theory. But if there is such a relationship in any particular instance, the
> relationship has to be demonstrated and argued for, it cannot be assumed.
You are right and I think some members have mentioned this in the past.
I am fairly comfortable with this argument.
> But you seem to want something more than a possible dynamic relationship.
> You want a relationship in which one party controls the other.
Sorry, I really wasn't sure what I was thinking let alone wanting
something, and I notice this has caused many troubles in the past.
Sometimes, I feel like I were a little baby, when something is bothering
me but I have no adult intellectual tools to express myself and I just
need to let the adults guess along when I am going "eee, aaa, ddd".
> My immediate question is why? Cannot designing contain its own purposes?
I think this is precisely what I am searching.
> If, however, you are concerned that designers may not act in the best
> interests of society and therefore need controlling, then you may have a
> case. But the case would be one for having general principles of moral
> engagement. This is why I mentioned 'respect for others' as a key criterion
> in judging my kind of design theories. But are such principles part of any
> theory of design, or are they principles about how one should conduct
> oneself in the world regardless of whether one is a designer, an inventor of
> theories about design, or just another human being?
You see David, I always think that principles must have a moral
dimension and of course my moral is not necessarily other people's moral
and vice versa. I think I was wondering that since the Life of PP can be
guided by various value systems, so there must be decisions made,
consciously or subconsciously, PRIOR to the development of PP. So I was
guessing what that priori was. And your reply helped me keep thinking.
I think another reason that prompted me to seek the dynamics among types
of design theories is because I value all of them. I wanted to see what
kind of existing dynamics there are and then to see if some holes can be
filled. I wondered if there is an opportunity for me since I am in a PhD
program, a luxury as far as I am concerned.
> so when you say:
> >then we need some principles
> I ask who is this 'we' who has such a 'need'?
I understand that conflicts are inherent in human relationships due to
our different interests that have been cultivated over the years as
social beings. However, I have not given up hope that 'we', you, me and
others despite many valuable differences, can find in ourselves
something that is common so that we can speak of 'we'. And I think I am
trying to realize that.
I also think that many differences are a matter of perspective, a human
perception that can be adjusted. I am saying all these because I feel
that after identifying the various types of design theories, it will be
useful to see how some useless differences can be eliminated, and how
these theories can 'work' together toward a common goal.