Dear Ken, Terry and Joseph,
I guess Terry was being ironic. He was the one that drifted the most from
the original questions. Whigs have always done that.
But we are coming somewhere. The question is what a Design Philosophy Doctor
should be like?
First, a liberal bachelor.
Secondly a Labour Master,
Finally a Conservative Doctor?
(Of course that our Nordic friends would say: No, just a Social Democrat
from the beginning to the end.)
But what I meant was:
Liberal: pick what you like from the sciences, the arts, the humanities, the
classics (don't forget drawing!) as long as you learn diverse stuff for
Labour: Young man/woman you must learn a trade, these are the tricks to do
Conservative: The are rules in this, meta rules, some say is science, some
say its art, but first of all, in the end, it entitles you to wear a funny
hat and a funny gown.
Is this useful PhD thinking or what?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 6:48 AM
Subject: Re: Liberal?
> One suggestion made by Phil Agre is that to understand the shift in once
> radical liberalism to the current confused bundle of contradictory
> one needs to understand how conservatism has coopted concepts relating to
> ethics and human values and redefined them, often to mean their
> (see, http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html ).
> This is broadly supported by historic analyses in Wikipedia:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism ,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism ,
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism )
> Many of Phil Agre's papers are found on his home page: at
> http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/ or in RedRock Eater newsletter
> at http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/rre.html
> They are engaging and useful reading - you've been warned!
> Finally, just wondering if this thread is drifting a bit off topic for
> Dr. Terence Love
> Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
> Mobile: 0434975 848
> [log in to unmask]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dr.
> Joseph Chiodo
> Sent: Wednesday, 28 February 2007 11:24 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Liberal?
> Hello Chris & Ken,
> 1st off, thank you for the clarification. My mistake - I misinterpreted
> the word. I must confess, I did not read the first few posts of that
> - my perpetually jetlagged busyness has cost me quite a bit of rigor here.
> therefore interpreted the word according to my sometimes tumultuous
> experience in a half-dozen or so universities that I have received degrees
> and post graduate degrees from. Most of these institutions were very
> and self-proclaimed 'liberals'; as in overtly liberal leftist thinking. I
> took a couple of courses in critical thinking and deductive process
> mention of the historical term of liberal as you put it. Mind you I was
> educated in a postcolonial world mindset in North America, Europe and UK:
> I'm barely 30odd with interests in molecular physics,
> mathematics/probability - not much to do with this topic. Needless to say,
> as a scientist/inventor etc. eventually, I was clearly not at home amongst
> these hardline socialists (some
> communist) who proclaimed ownership of the term 'liberal' as such.
> some might say.
> My experience with conservatives is very different than yours. I have
> found more bigots on the 'left' than on the 'right'. I myself, can not
> consider myself either. I think they both have some decent intentions.
> as for practical solutions.... that's a whole new debate.
> I believe the role of relativism however, is largely taken for granted.
> Would you not say that most people, at least in our circles, are more
> relativistic in their deductive process than purely deductive logic would
> warrant? Perhaps this is a bold thing to say but I would be interested to
> know your thoughts, perhaps in another string.
> Nonetheless, I'm no expert in this field. Interesting topics indeed.
> Chris Rust <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dr. Joseph Chiodo wrote:
>> Most fundamentalist or neo-liberals however, are too simply minded in
> their constructs to notice...
> Sorry Joe, I'm afraid you are perpetuating the problem here. I am
> concerned about our responsibility, as academics and researchers, to be
> What I was trying to say, in my oblique British way, is that terminology
> can be very misleading, especially in an international arena. The very
> term "neo-liberal" would be an oxymoron in my country where political
> Liberals are soft-left with an undercurrent of Adam Smith. In Australia
> the Liberal Party is the most right-leaning mainstream party which would
> probably have some ideas in common with the Republicans in the USA.
> "Liberal" and "libertarian" do connect. As you look around the world you
> see that the idea of liberalism has been very liberally interpreted.
> And liberal education, or liberal arts education, which I've always been
> told is the foundation of US university education, is nothing to do with
> the kind of political thinking that seem to be implied by the term
> liberal in that country. It implies a broad foundation of knowledge
> rather than a specialism and I assume it produced George Bush and Dick
> Cheney as well as more "liberal" thinkers. If such a foundation leads
> people to question demagoguery that's a consequence of education and
> awareness. I read a while ago that people with a higher education are
> less likely to be racist - in my book that means they are more liberal
> (ie open-minded and inclusive) and better for it. If you have a
> different specialist definition of the word, as a researcher, I'm afraid
> you have to be precise about that and aware of the possibility of
> The best gets better. See why everyone is raving about the All-new Yahoo!