At 04:13 PM 8/9/2003 -0700, Ken Friedman wrote:
>Dear Lubomir,
>.....
>You are right to criticize my rough approximations on
>university-level design education.
Dear Ken,
I HAD NEVER IMPLIED CRITICISM TO YOUR POST IN MY TEXT. I HAD NEVER
QUESTIONED THE INFORMATION. I realized that the numbers might be rounded,
but that was not a problem for me. I mentioned explicitly that I have
similar experience. I was, in some way, pleasantly surprised that the
percentages offered by you and the estimates by me were so close. I
actually implied that there might be a common pattern and the commonalties
might be indicative for something very interesting about design education
and design profession.
My post was intended to support yours and to probe further. I was
interested how other members of the list will react to these developments
and whether they have similar or different observations. This was an
important probe for me in the process of conceptualizing the problems in
environmental design education.
It seems to me that the similarities in our experience were so surprising
for you that you interpret my text as a mockery.
So much about this case. Now I would like to take the chance to clarify my
situation in general, regarding many other posts.
In a very friendly way, this case is frustrating for me because it is
indicative that some of my ideas and statements are so radical that no one
on the list accept them in their plain form. Maybe that is the reason that
I often re-post particular concepts and ideas for years and no-body pays
attention or in the best-case scenario they get completely rejected.
While this might be viewed as a communication problem I would attribute the
misunderstandings to different ways of schooling, conceptualizing the
world, and interpreting texts. I also feel the discrepancy in my own way. I
am surprised by the directions the list takes and the approaches used and
supported. I have major differences about the ways the most important
issues are conceptualized approached, e.g. the issues of common grounds,
the nature of design, design and social factors, and so forth. I can say in
general that there are existing approaches that are more productive than
the perspective favoured by the list members. However, for some reason
people on the list don't want to hear that and do not want to try new
avenues. I know that this is the natural way for developing and sustaining
a domain.
I also realize that some of the reactions are due to my misinterpretation
of the scope of participants on the list. It includes practice-oriented
designers, academics, and philosophers; people with bachelor's degrees and
people with Ph.D. degrees; people working in different domain with
absolutely different scholarly norms and standards, and so forth.
Anyway, I want to emphasize that this is not a rumble. I just take the
opportunity to explain something more fundamental than a single situation
with one post.
I also want to express my appreciation to all colleagues on the list who
contribute to the development of a global community of high-level
discourse. Without such a community I feel I will become a parish school
teacher. The current higher education system tends to appreciate and
support more the baby-sitters (I don't mean women!) who make the kids
happy, the families -- repeated customers, and the university coffers --
full. So, a list like this is the only opportunity to keep fit and to
energize, to receive new information and to learn how other people think.
Best wishes to all,
Lubomir Popov
|