Dear Ken and all,
The central issue in this discussion is that some of us are working on the basis of an awareness that research over the last 20 years strongly suggests that the established meanings of such words as “think,” “know,” “intend” or “act” can no longer be taken for granted. Many would argue that these new understandings means these terms incorrectly represent the activities to which they are traditionally applied and as which they are commonly defined in dictionaries.
Science and new knowledge has moved our understanding of the world on. The broad challenges to such core concepts have implications for design theory and design research.
That is the issue in question, not whether the new ideas of design research fit with the old meanings of “think,” “know,” “intend” or “act”. The new foundations that are emerging of design research are based on new understandings that conceptually rework the territories previously defined in terms of 'thinking', 'knowing', 'intending' and 'acting'.
In effect, these recent discussions on Phd-design are a tension in the field concerning a deeply radical review of theories of design, creativity, intuition and the roles of feelings and cognition in human existence. We are living in interesting times.
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Monday, 17 August 2009 2:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Who Designs?
Thanks for a thoughtful post. When I wrote, I stated that I didn't want
to argue the meaning of such words as “think,” “know,”
“intend” or “act.”