Dear Keith,
Thanks for picking up on the issue of interpretation from any
"stance". I agree that any stance is taken from an informed point of
view that frames and focuses interpretation. I quibble a bit about the
term apprehension (which I understand as "to take hold with
understanding"). I prefer "intentional stance" with the meaningful
and appropriate "apprehension" still to come. I take your "categories
of apprehension" as the points of view that inform and characterize
their respective intentional stance.
I would greatly appreciate receiving a scanned or electronic copy of
your article. (Having become de-institutionalized I don't have easy
access to the source document.) I'd like to better understand the
redundancy and materialism you mention.
Thanks,
Chuck
On Mar 31, 2011, at 6:29 PM, Keith Russell wrote:
> Dear Chuck,
>
> one of the ways that I look at stance is through categories of
> apprehension - that is, when we stand, in relation to the world, as a
> designer, or as a communicator etc., we assume (take on the
> limitations
> of) a range of things.
>
> For example, one can compare the apprehension of "difference" between
> say a Design stance, a Communication stance and an Information (as in
> Information Technology) stance. I have done this and produced a set of
> distinctions.
>
> (See Russell, Keith *Design Philosophy and Difference*. Design
> Journal (Ashgate Publishing) ISSN 1460-6925, Vol 5, Issue 3, 2002.
> pp.
> 35-40.)
>
> It is perhaps easier here to example what I am talking about in terms
> of literature. Traditionally we have three historical genres: the
> Dramatic, the Epic (novel), and the Lyric (poetry). In each of
> these, we
> engage differently according to how we understand we are intended to
> stand in relation to the available materials. Much of the nonsense of
> post-modern and de-constructionist approaches to the novel has arisen
> because critics have elected to stand, in relation to a novel, as if
> they were reading a poem (lyric). That is, the levels of difference
> that
> one might bring to a poem have been brought to a novel. This, of
> course,
> has been compounded by novelists writing novels in the lyric mode.
> And,
> to further aggravate the distinctions, modern films have elements of
> all
> three genres mixed up in a trifle cake of possible stances.
>
> We can, however, use film to example some of the key issues. In a
> film,
> what are we to do with the background? Beyond saying the film is set
> in
> Paris, are we to say that the director intended the green VW driving
> by
> as some kind of comment on the action? Or, are we to question whether
> the green VW is there because of a product placement that is just
> fanservice, or maybe it is product placement that is intended to
> make a
> comment on the lives of the characters?
>
> In a novel, the green VW is only there because the author put it
> there,
> maybe incidentally. In a poem, the green VW is there as a possible
> symbol, metaphor for all kinds of things - the very sound of VW could
> have all kinds of links with other sounds etc.
>
> We can readily understand these different stances and hence we can say
> a film or novel is very poetic and a novel or poem is very dramatic,
> and
> a drama or poem is very epic.
>
> Following on this illustration of our general awareness of stance, we
> can say an object is very designerly, by which we mean that the stance
> of the designer has over-loaded the stance of design. And so on.
>
> So, when we take the stance of a designer, how do we apprehend
> differences? In my paper, mentioned above, I take a rather logical and
> material approach. In IT, the differences need to be no more than
> binary
> and repeatable with very low levels of redundancy. In design,
> differences must be materially stable, repeatable and have a higher
> level of redundancy than those to be found in IT. In the case of
> communication, we need all the above plus very high levels of
> redundancy.
>
> We apprehend the logical and material possibilities of difference
> according to our social organization of stances.
>
> Hope these comments are useful and all the best with the project
>
> keith
>
>
>>>> Charles Burnette <[log in to unmask]> 04/01/11 4:41 AM >>>
>
> Harold said:
> "Design is a stance I believe, an approach to the human condition just
>
> as science, religion or politics are, and not a discipline."
>
> Derek replied:
> I like that notion of design as a stance. I'm going to think about. it
>
> I'm delighted that the concept of "design stance" has been introduced
>
> to the list:
>
> We owe the terms to Daniel Dennett, the American Philosopher. He
> defined *Design stance* as behavior in which
> one predicts that an entity is designed as they suppose it to be and
> will operate according
> to that design. (1) I have adapted his broader philosophical system
> based on interpreting things from an "intentional stance" as the
> motivating orientation focusing all modes of purposeful thought, and
> design thinking in particular. I believe that the design stance is
> primarily a way of focusing intentional thought and action to produce
>
> meaningful and appropriate expressions, artifacts or behaviors
> relevant to intentional goals regarding a situation or context of
> concern. Formulating an appropriate proposal, message, or artifact
> regarding a focal situation requires a "design stance" regarding the
>
> situation. However, the products of other intentional modes must be
> interpreted, synthesized and expressed and synthesized subject to a
> Formative intent within a broader framework of intentional
> considerations. Both Dennett's system of distinctions and those
> particular to design thinking are discussed in the papers;
> "Intentionality in Design" and "A Theory of Design Thinking" that can
>
> be found at http://independent,academia.edu/charlesburnette.
>
> I'd really appreciate your thoughts about how a "design stance"
> becomes motivated and pursued. It has become a fundamental building
> block for my theory of design thinking. It is too important an idea
> to be left without adequate formulation.
>
> Thanks,
> Chuck
>
> 1) Dennett, D. 1996. Kinds of Minds, NY: Basic Books
|