Hello Norm,
You said:

"Relations are designed event structures that bring
individuated and diverse
input/kinds together in one or more of an infinite
variety of formations."

Are relations always designed(intentional). Can they
not already exist and be simply perceived or
acknowledged?
I agree that events are structured by the
relationships that underlie them, but that can't be
the whole story (and I don't think you are saying that
it is). In my view, relations afford the structure for
events. They do not formalize, interpret or act. Such
things depend on intent, context, mediation and
background which are not necessarily random (but could
be).

and
"Order is the specific & contextual knowledge which
emerges from this
particular formation event."
Isn't form the order that emerges from the mediation
of specific and contextual knowledge (including
information contingent on the underlying
relationships). In other words the formative event is
the emergence of order based on specific and
contextual knowledge. While specific and contextual
knowledge results it has been mediated from that
afforded by the relationship. Maybe you are just
talking about the outcome side here.

And,
"This is meta-transformational because the kind of
diversity is related
through and to the kind of order or knowledge which
emerges."
I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean the
diversity that emerges or the diversity that is input.
If you are saying that the kind of order that emerges
manifests the diversity that underlies the
transformation I agree. It is, however, necessarily
focused or reductive - the resulting order/form can
not explicitly express all the diversity afforded by
the underlying relationships but can allude to the
greater richness they contain and if the design is
particularly effective, these meanings  can be
unbundled to some degree.

Thanks for a very interesting post (and for any
further comments).

Best

Chuck

Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs
in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Norm
Sheehan
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 9:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Creativity


Hi Alan

I guess the kind of relational training I see as most
crucial is the
structuring of knowledge contexts where individuals
may engage in a
personal journey through change. I describe these
knowledge contexts as a
place where each individual observes/learns ways of
positioning themselves
in/through their being-in-the-world in relation to the
living knowledge of
others.

A definition of this approach is sublated by the
relational paradigm … a
definition works best when the 'thing' being defined
is presented to mind
as an 'object'ie this thing is 'x' within a
propositional paradigm which
makes sense. We may describe how we are related to a
thing where the 'we'
and the 'thing' may be defined but the 'relation' is a
multiplex state
rather than an object and thus should be presented to
mind as such...thus
attempting to objectively define relation causes
confusion. This approach
to definitive approaches is essential in the cross
cultural context of my
work because relation is not so well structured into
the English language…
in the family of Aboriginal languages the description
of very specific
kinds of relations is a predominant feature.

To describe what I mean by relational training …this
is the
meta-transformational structuring of knowledge
contexts. Designing
structures or formations in which change happens under
the general
relational principle that diversity + individuation
through relations = order
WHERE
Diversity + individuation equate to random inputs (of
a kind)

Relations are designed event structures that bring
individuated and diverse
input/kinds together in one or more of an infinite
variety of formations

Order is the specific & contextual knowledge which
emerges from this
particular formation event

This is meta-transformational because the kind of
diversity is related
through and to the kind of order or knowledge which
emerges. So the
teacher's learning is based in understanding the
varieties of
transformation structures and the many species of
order which may emerge.
In Indigenous languages these multiplex knowledge
formations and species of
order are described through a relational (and mostly
visual) philosophy.

The context of these events is the human experiential
context…the living
context of a group of people walking together through
change.

Norm







At 06:34 PM 22/09/03 -0700, Alan Murdock wrote:
>Dr. M.Basadur: However we define creativity, it is an
inborn human
faculty, one that we can nourish, cultivate and raise
to extraordinary
heights in virtually anything we try.
>
>Interesting.  Gets past the definition to a process
that can be applied
anywhere.
>
>
>Norm: Teaching for creativity requires a relational
training that fosters
>negotiation skills within various species of
'hostile' contexts.
>
>Could you further define what you mean by relational
training - do you
mean general human interpersonal skills or are you
specifically referring
to something specific like Voice Dialogue therapy, or
do you mean something
technical like relational database design?
>
>Alan
>
[log in to unmask]
Norman Sheehan
Lecturer
Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit
University of Queensland
Brisbane Old 4072 Australia