Hi Keith, Chris & All

Thank you..I too believe that Engagement is a vital principle in design
learning...in the groups i work with engagement, moibility and fit are key
themes in developing a relational understanding through design...each of
these themes has layers of meaning across various contexts and it is this
the depth of such layering which i believe substitutes for conceptions of
"truth" and eliminates such questions & judgements from significance (in
the context of the learning together we promote).

An example of this is a relational patterning exercise where students are
required to present a design on a card which has register points on all
four sides so that when cards are placed together a whole pattern emerges
which can then be manipulated into a single whole group design.

One student in this exercise presented a final design which consisted of a
dot in the centre of the card...no relations to other cards... this
particular person was extremely arrogant in his rejection of the Indigenous
relational context within which these exercises aim to engage students. The
whole group battled to include this single divergent card in their whole
completed design and in the end they solved the problem by placing this
card in the center of a circle of cards which were all similar in their
lack of patterning strength at one end of the design. The remainder of the
group design was richly patterned and very cohesive.

The text element of this exercise required student to place one or two
words on the back of cards....this divergent card had ONE & POWER written
on the back... however when seen as a whole design this card and the circle
of cards around it formed the 'head' of a whole image which one student
described as a big lizard.

In this knowledge formation the most divergent and intentionally disruptive
card became normitive as an expression of the self-identity consciousness
of an image of a living (knowledge) body...and the other cards in this
knowledge formation then became available through metaphorical
interpretation as 'eyes', 'neck', 'heart', 'legs', 'binji or stomach' and
'tail'...cards at the opposite end of the group design could also be
evaluated with much amusement as being 'tracks' and 'droppings'.

The depth of divergent rejection of the relational principles of the design
exercise characterised the whole group knowledge formation in this
exercise...from this and our explanative lectures students could see that
Indigenous understandings called Dreaming 'totems' in anthropology where
actually particular knowledge formations in Indigenous philosophy...ie
Discriptions of one pattern of living knowledge formation in natural systems.

The most divergent intent to disrupt the learning paradigm became a
generative origin for the whole formation. This student who held the
strongest fundamentalist beliefs found himself deeply challenged by his own
'false' sketch because it really made this whole group (pagan and primative
in his view)knowledge formation possible.

I believe that in my context at least the engagement potentials of design
over ride categorisational judgements because the ways in which designs fit
and move or mobilise intention in a whole group context combined with the
levels of such engagement, fit and mobilisation present enormous potentials
and possibilities most of which are not realised until a whole group
judgement free engagement opportunity arises.

Norm


may At 11:14 PM 7/09/03 +1000, Keith Russell wrote:
>Dear Klaus,
>
>I agree with your comments about "false" consciousness -  this is not to
suggest that the problems cannot be fixed.
>
>the issues are well worked out in phenomenology  - but this will get us
into the arena of "intentionality" - as often happens on the list, a major
philosophical issue is raised at a tangent in a practical way. The aim
seems to be to use everyday terms to solve everyday problems. You are right
to point out the easy looking that hides difficult and major questions.
>
>all the best
>
>keith russell
>newcastle OZ
>
>
>>>> klaus krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> 09/06/03 02:43 AM >>>
>
>
>assuming this to be so, the issue of false consciousness arises
>(1) when someone (with an impliciy claim to superior consciousness) judges
>someone else (with a supposedly inferior consciousness, inferior because he
>or she cannot judge hos or her consciousness) to have a consciousness that
>is false
>(2) and when that judger denies having made a judgment and claims this to be
>indisputably true in fact.
>
>i find that obnoxious. nobody (knowingly) has a false consciousness
>
>i am suggesting that everyone's consciousness is what it is: consciousness.
>(frankly, i am not even sure exactly what consciousness means but take it to
>be a summary term for what one understands or how one approaches the world).
>at any one moment it is taken to be correct, true, the only thing that one
>has to go by.
>
>if it turns out later, and only in retrospect, that one's consciousness got
>one into trouble, if one made a mistake, goes on a wrong start, makes an
>unworking assumption and explains one's trouble in terms of the difference
>between one's past consciousness and one's present consciousness, in other
>words, in terns of having learned something since, then one can say that
>one's past consciousness was false (i would prefer a more moderate word)
>relative to one's current consciousness.
>
>but who is to say whether one's current consciousness will turn out to be
>false at some later point in time?
>
>i like the suggestion that there is no false sketch -- except of one has a
>criteria against which its truth, accuracy, or use can be measured
>
>does anyone have a lead to Aristotle's law?
>
>klaus
>
>klaus krippendorff
>gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture
>the annenberg school for communication
>university of pennsylvania
>3620 walnut street
>philadelphia, pa 19104.6220
>phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H)
>fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H)
>usa
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs in Design
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Keith Russell
>Sent: Friday, September 05, 2003 3:44 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Design Learning - was false consciousness
>
>
>Dear Chris
>
>I think we can have a "false" sketch when we talk about a "false start" -
>that is, in getting engaged, we have strategies that help us tune our
>instruments (devices for providing structure).
>
>I am happy with brain storms and lateral thinking exercises when they are
>looked at this way - that is, a gestures towards engagement.
>
>When we align any of our mediations (structured actions) with intent, the
>the falsehood quickly looks like inauthenticity. If we shift to the strong
>mode of intention (all acts of consciousness are intentional) then we can
>allow that we often gesture wrong to proceed correctly - we need something
>to correct to feel confident that we are now on the path - this missing
>aspect shows up in mechanical objects that lack positive feedback - how to
>know which gear I am in if there is no wrong position?
>
>Mature artists/designers/humans can show real style in how they make these
>false starts.
>
>good topic.
>
>keith russell
>newcastle OZ
>
>>>> Chris Heape <[log in to unmask]> 09/05/03 17:33 PM >>>
>Dear Norm,
>
>On the false consciousness thread you asked:
>..." can there be a false sketch in the same way there may be false
>consciousness?.."
>
[log in to unmask]
Norman Sheehan
Lecturer
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit
University of Queensland
Brisbane Old 4072 Australia