David said
>Yes indeed, but I was not talking about making science, but about designing.
>Though here too, voting is not an appropriate methodology, except in a very
>limited way.
I would say:
Voting is never a good approach to design but consensus through working through
the clash of differing opinions toward a higher synergistic solution is.
Jan
Jan Coker
C3-10 Underdale Campus
University of South Australia
+61 8 8302 6919
"I charge you all that each one of you concentrate all the thoughts of your
heart on love and unity. When a thought of war comes, oppose it by a stronger
thought of peace. A thought of hatred must be destroyed by a more powerful
thought of love. Thoughts of war bring destruction to all harmony, well-being,
restfulness and content . . . Thoughts of love are constructive of brotherhood,
peace, friendship, and happiness."
'Abdu'l-Bahá from Paris Talks
-----Original Message-----
From: davidsless [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Tuesday, 11 March 2003 7:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Creativity+Design research for designers
Lubomir
I'm intrigued.
> I need to mention here that I almost entirely disagree with your posts and
> stance regarding creativity.
If you have time, please do elaborate.
Also:
> If we start making science by voting, you can imagine what will happen.
Yes indeed, but I was not talking about making science, but about designing.
Though here too, voting is not an appropriate methodology, except in a very
limited way.
David
|