Hi Klaus,
In justifying your position on abstractions and theory you say,
" i[sic] am convinced and share that convictions with many philosophers of
language and social constructivists that we live and understand in
language.."
In many posts to this list, you have expressed a position that depends on
seeing language as the foundation of human functioning and thinking.
I invite you to reconsider.
To a hammer everything is a nail. For those such as philosophers, academics
and communicators whose daily life is primarily focused on words, they can
tend to see the world as if it is only made of language. This follows the
same pattern as those whose job is drawing and tend to see the world in
terms of drawing. Similarly, engineers can tend to see the world as if it is
a machine and designers can tend to view the world as if everything is a
design.
That doesn't mean that any of these is correct, complete or wholesome.
In the case of the language, there are simple personal experience and
empirical tests that indicate otherwise. For example:
1. Drop out of language use for a few days. Do not talk, read or use words.
The resultant experience is that thinking happens differently. It still
happens but without dependence on words.
2. Look at aphasic stroke victims whose language centre has been destroyed.
This is a common outcome of left-brain strokes. The individuals can still
think and operate, but not through words. Both speech and writing are no
longer possible, but it is clear that thinking, feeling, emoting and acting
are still possible
3. I know a man here in Western Australia who is a long term meditator and
who has extensive Alzheimer's disease well past the point that he would
normally be in care. His habit of living moment by moment and without much
dependence on a culturally, word-mediated, picture of reality means he can
continue to live by himself and function relatively normally.
The above indicate that language is only a superficial secondary aspect of
human functioning (a bit like those who use cars so much that they forget
that they can also get places by walking).
This suggests that we should view its role more as a tool. A tool for
improving communication and extending our memory.
Language fulfils these roles better if we focus on using definitions and
socially agreed meanings that reduce ambiguity - rather than reifying the
way individuals use words differently. I would suggest that the latter
hinders rather than helps overall.
In developing a stronger and more coherent foundation for design research
across design disciplines. It may be better that we see langauge and the use
of words in this way.
Thoughts?
Best regards,
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
Love Web Services
Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Mobile: 0434975 848
[log in to unmask]
www.lovewebservices.com
===
|