Dear Who,

I'm not sure who  was speaking to whom in this exchange, but I found it
interesting and useful.

With the hope that I am not moving too far off topic in this conversation, I
can suggest work by the philosopher Scott Buchanan (no direct relation to
me).  His doctoral dissertation under Whitehead was published as
"Possibility," and it is a powerful discussion of the nature of possibility
and the multiple frames of reference that possibility involves.  I think
that Klaus would fine it interesting--as I have found Klaus's comments very
helpful in this discussion, as in many others.  It is a dialectical
discussion, but with many unspoken implications for philosophical
rhetoric--an art that had not yet received much significant attention at the
time in the twentieth century.

Scott Buchanan's later work, "Poetry and Mathematics," is a very useful
dialectical discussion of the various forms of mathematics and their
relationship with poetry and storytelling.  To me, it is a fine bridge into
design.  Many of my design students read this book.

Another book by Scott Buchanan, "The Doctrine of Signatures," is quite
relevant to design and design research.  It is about the early development
of medical research in the United States.  Issues of evidence and
information and the interpretation and use of evidence and information are
discussed in very interesting ways.

Whoever wrote the encyclopedia piece on information theory--Terry or
Klaus--I would appreciate receiving a copy.  Many thanks.

Richard

Richard Buchanan
Carnegie Mellon University


On 4/11/07 12:18 PM, "Klaus Krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> terry,
>
> let me intersperse my comments in yours:
>
> Hi Klaus,
>
> I think that  like Jerry you are faultily presuming   a simplistic logical
> positivist approach to information in what I wrote. The underlying
> epistemology is constructivist (social and individual) and ethological, but
> not phenomenological. Like any constructivist perspective it presumes faulty
> construction and self-delusion as equivalent states to sound understanding.
>
> frankly, i do not understand what you are saying that i am presuming, and
> the big labels you are connecting: simplistic positivist, constructivist,
> epistemology, self-delusion, sound (as opposed to unsound) understanding....
>
>
> I am happy with the approach you have to information and the roles that you
> give it. From experience, I have found that all of those richer
> understandings you describe of how a designer functions seem to work well in
> viewing  design methods as primarily modes of gathering information. Its
> also possible to extend the richness of understanding how designers fucntion
> and are informed through  extending your approach into a biological
> perspective of human functioning  - and one that includes humans/designers
> being self deluded.
>
> A couple of questions though. What is the 'it' that you say 'reduces
> uncertainty'; 'is always relative to what you know'; 'is always an issue of
> timing' etc?
>
> it can be a conversation about a subject matter, the experience of reading a
> report, observations that confirm of deny a hypothesis, connections you made
> that give you the confidence in acting knowledgeably
>
> Second, if designers thrive on not taking 'information' too seriously in
> order to bring something new forth (which I have no problem with) then
> 'what' are they exploring?
>
> i'd say they are exploring possibilities
>
> With 'what' do they reflect on it?
>
> with their minds and in conversations with others, other designers,
> stakeholders, users.
>
> With 'what' do they express it?
>
> i have said it often.  designers make proposals for possible futures that
> they hope other stakeholders will pick up and realize.
>
> My suggestion is that this is all a matter of informing and information -
> tho perhaps with a perspective on information that is more than a simple
> fact such as the 'the date is the 10th of April'!
>
> a proposal is not a fact, nor a convention, e.g. to label time in reference
> to an agreed upon calendar.  it must make realistic suggestions, pass
> possibilities for desirable futures to potential stakeholders, possibilities
> that others can see as realizable and enroll them into the project that
> designers are proposing.
>
> proposals are linguistic in the broad sense to include presentations,
> drawings, visualizations, instructions, and if you want, address the
> capabilities and aspirations of those stakeholders who matter.  proposals
> have no truth value in the sense of accurately describing what exists.  they
> must be compelling others into actions to bring forth something not yet
> realized.
>
> Understanding the practices and internal activities of engineering designers
> is in a way much more complex and difficult than understanding graphic
> designers. The difference is the intermedial conscious and unconscious roles
> of formalised unambiguous yet inaccurate abstractions.
>
> the comparison is a bit simplistic.  there are simple engineering problems,
> like routinely varying the design of a fastener to fit an unusual situation,
> and there are complex graphical design problems, like developing the
> graphical strategy for a large advertising campaign, having to anticipate
> the responses of culturally diverse audiences.  the failure of a graphical
> design may cost millions and have long lasting effects for the future of an
> agency.  the failure of an engineering design can be costly too, but can be
> corrected within a narrow problem solving paradigm.
>
> i hope this answers your questions
>
> klaus
>
> ps, since the discussion group does not allow detachments, i am sending you
> (or anyone who requests it) the first draft of and encyclopedia entry on
> information theory
>
> One thing that hasn't yet (to my knowledge) been adequately written about in
> the design research literature is engineering designers' artistic use of the
> information provided by abstract meta-representations of phenomena via
> equations. Many  good engineering designers (particularly conceptual phase
> designers) can 'feel' their way round the potential for better solutions by
> feeling round the multi-dimensioned phenomenological potentials represented
> by the relationships between variables in equations. This artistic use of
> information about phenomena is in respects  different and no different from
> the perhaps less abstract ability central to all designers to be able to use
> internalised informal representations of  the visual, 'what they have seen',
> or mixed external perceptions 'what they have experienced', (both
> information) to be able to feel their way using internal biological
> processes to identify potential or better possibilities for design outcomes.
>
>
> If anyone knows of good literature about the above application of designers'
> feelings to formulae in design research I'd welcome knowing about it. I'm
> aware of several books and papers in the realms of  mathematics, physics and
> biology that document this phenomena.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Terry
>
> ===
> Dr. Terence Love
> Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
> Mobile: 0434975 848
> [log in to unmask]
> ===
>
>