I have watched the recent "debate" growing out of the theme Is all
writing fiction with some "interest" and, eventually, relief that
Jonas intervened—thanks.
I think there is a very important lesson in what happened, which I'd
like to explore.
I do not want to point fingers, so I shall talk from my own
experience. Any readers may, of course, make whatever connections
they like. I am not interested in taking sides: I do this in the hope
that, if others reflect on what I offer, and on what went on, they
may find my offering relevant and helpful.
Two years ago I was at a workshop where we became involved in
promoting a both/and logic. However, some of us argued that both/and
was better than either/or logic, and so we should chose both/and. In
taking this position, we, of course, subjugated our preference (both/
and) to the dominance of exactly that logic we were arguing against:
for were arguing that there was a choice, either of both/and, or of
either/or. Sometimes when we try to replace old habits of thinking we
fall into exactly those habits we are trying to overcome, as in this
case.
Another example was a most distinguished academic who claimed to do
"second order cybernetics". He asked to use a quote of mine as a
chapter heading. Of course I agreed. The quote was "A part is a whole
in a role." He thought I'd written "a whole is a part in a role",
which, if you do second order cybernetics, is completely different.
He could not se this, claiming there wasn't much difference. He
believed he had crossed the rubicon, but he had not.
When we try to move beyond or outside the limitations we grew up in,
we often have to take a leap of faith. We cannot argue the case,
because it is precisely the (form of that) arguing we are trying to
go beyond. If we have the faith to let go enough to move on, we can
look back, and then the logic becomes clear, and we can usually
reintegrate the old into the framework of the new. This is a form of
post-rationalisation.
Of course, in one respect this is what designers do all the time. We
take leaps of faith as we wonder our way in designing, and, after the
event, we tell a story that makes sense of it all: we post-rationalise.
To me, this understanding is absolutely central to understanding both
design as an activity we do, and how we transcend the limitations of
the traps of our current thinking. I say central, I do not say
essential or exclusive, though one day I might try to, if I can hold
onto my faith for long enough!
Ranulph
|