Hi all,

This discussion makes me think that there are a lot of good people that 
could send an abstract to the panel "/Principia/ of Design" to the 
UNIDCOM/IADE conference www.iade.pt/unidcom/sslx . It's only until the 
6^th of February.
Let's discuss this stuff face to face around a bottle of good Portuguese 
wine.

Best regards

Eduardo Corte-Real

IADE - Lisbon

PS: Here's one on Analytical versus Continental Philosophy:

By Alberto Caeiro:

"Hey, keeper of flocks,
There by the side of the road,
What does the blowing wind say to you?"

"/That it's the wind, that it blows,
That it's blown before
And will blow again.
What does it say to you?"/

"So much more than that.
It speaks to me of many other things.
Of memories and yearnings
And things that never were."

"/You never heard the wind blow.
The wind only talks about the wind.
What you heard from it was a lie,
And the lie is in you/."



On 04-02-2011 6:56, Terence Love wrote:
> Hi Luke
>
>
> Any  subjective-based approach to making design  theory,  whether
> continentally high flying such as Dreyfus, Heidegger, Sartre or Husserl, or
> lowflying as in protocol analysis self reporting and opinion-sampling
> empirical surveys depends on their being some justifiably accurate
> connection between what people report about 'inside of themselves' and what
> is observably going on as seen by others in ways that can be subjected to
> some kind of empirical checking.
>
> It's pretty effortless to show that subjectivist reality isn't a great basis
> for deriving theory from. We don't know what we think or feel. We lie about
> it to ourselves. We are subject to widespread illusions and delusions moment
> by moment as well as over the longer term. All these make subjective 'truth'
> pretty undependable as a basis for making theory about being, nothing ness -
> or design.
>
> This puts a pretty big challenge to continental philosophy to get round -
> and I've not yet come across a sincere attempt to prove empirical validity
> of continental philosophers' speculations  by members of that group  who
> have continued to remain in that tradition.
>
> Or can you think of a situation otherwise?
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Terence Love [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, 4 February 2011 4:10 PM
> To: Luke Jaaniste;[log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: generalizability of research through/by design
>
> Hi Luke,
>
> How is the weather? Looks like  there will be some big changes  in building
> design specs and urban design regs over your side soon!
>
> Schön's writing and theories do not provide a sound basis for making theory
> about design. Schon knew this and commented on it himself. He was very aware
> that what he was writing was rhetoric useful for making money out of
> business consultancy work rather than creating sound theory about design.
>
> Most researchers I've met have not read Schon carefully and  checked the
> justification for his reasoning and identified exactly what can be validly
> derived from it in terms of theorizing about design. If you do read it
> carefully with an epistemological critical eye to find sound theory
> foundations you will find  - not much.
> A  brief paper addressing this issue  in 2002 is at
> http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2002/2002%20CG%20Reflective_TL
> .htm  Apologies, the transition to html resulted in some creative
> formatting.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>