Dear Keith,

Ah - an understanding problem.

I'm suggesting a way of theorising about design activity that moves away
from the privilege and reification we give to self, sense of self,
self-perception of the world and self-perception of feelings and emotions
and instead sees human bodies in much the same way as we might see something
like a frog doing an activity. That is, moving away from placing self-ness
as the root and 'point of perspective' of theory making about design
activity.

When you say ' Someone from outside *my* experience as an experience trying
to put a body on *me*' this is using an assumption that the perspective of
'your' perceptions (sense of *self* and *self* perception of the experience)
or those of anyone else  is the only  way to theorise about the situation. 
I'm suggesting that this self-based kind of perspective is  not the best way
to theorise and that it is unhelpful. Rather, the most helpful is to ignore
or view as dubious any design theory that depends on self-based viewpoints
(rather a lot of the current literature).

You mentioned Freud. Freud simply guises the selfish position by standing
apart from it, and, however, viewing it from a position that assumes and
derives a more sophisticated 'sense of self' - but sense of self just the
same. To say 'I can feel what you feel' etc  is again a self-based focus of
theory-making. Same game, different coloured shirt.

You say <snip>' what is missing from the mind/body pair is the concept of a
psyche/self pair or simply, a psychology'<endsnip>

I'm suggesting that it is better if we avoid psychology as the central basis
for design theory and instead assume that design is done by our bodies  and
that the stuff that happens in our thoughts  and the sense of having a self
that is doing it are  secondary ephemeral phenomena. Bodies do what bodies
do: the  thinking and perception of feelings and of self is a secondary
semi-accidental construct of how humans are: much as a crow flaps its wings
in response to  a loud noise.

By implication this also suggests  the  body-mind pair is an inappropriate
foundation for design theory. Instead, it is suggesting  giving primacy to
the body and the way the body learns and operates as a the focus  of
understanding how humans design. It implies setting to one side what are to
date a  speculative literature of theories about mind, thinking and feelings
(and especially creativity and intuition) as seen by us as individuals.

Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI 

Senior Lecturer,  Dept of Design
Researcher, Social Program Evaluation Research Unit
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]

Director, Design-based Research Unit, Design Out Crime Research Centre

Member of International Scientific Council UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal

Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________



-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Keith
Russell
Sent: Monday, 4 April 2011 5:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The false dichotomy of theory vs practice
indesgin[was:NASA,Hasmat, etc.]

Dear Terry,

I don't have any real issues with the distinctions you are making except to
question what you mean by "body".

I can readily think the way you describe without any real need for something
called a body. Someone from outside my experience as an experience trying to
put a body on me is a very strange and autocratic event best known to grand
inquisitors.

The presumption of multiple moments that are interrelated, some occurring in
a space/time/identity complex that can be called pre-conscious and some in a
related subsequent and/or parallel space/time/identity complex is fine.
Using body and mind to isolate these moments is neither scientific nor
philosophical. It is just useful.

To use Freud's terms of id and ego is to advance concepts of individuals
based on the kinds of transformation in consciousness that occur subsequent
to the formation of an identity construct that is able to bare the enormity
of inventing/finding itself as a self. This is sometimes called maturing. It
also helps with extensions such as affects arising external to an
experiencer - I can feel what you feel and hence I am not me or you but
something in between and/or something else.

That is, what is missing from the mind/body pair is the concept of a
psyche/self pair or simply, a psychology.

I have long complained about the need for a psychology of design by which I
don't restrict the compass of such a psychology to mere accounts of what
happens in moments that have been accepted by some convents and conventions.

cheers

keith-again-maybe




>>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 04/04/11 12:38 PM >>>
Hi Keith,

Thanks for your message. 

The reason transitioning to a body-centric position on thinking (rather than
a 'thinking-centric' position on thinking)   is important, is that the
current discussions, are about the 'process of designing'. 

The discussion is about how we best make theory about the activity of
designing. In this, the  'content' of the designerly thought is secondary. 

Underpinning what I'm suggesting is a proposal that that the strand of
theorymaking that originated with the Greeks is unhelpful as the basis for
making design theory about internal subjective design processes. The Greek
approach privileged consciousness,  sense of self and self -perception of
situations  - hence all our current cognitive theory about thinking and our
definitions about and conceptualisation of emotions. I'm suggesting this
'Greek' approach is, and has been, a block on developing satisfactory
theories about design activity - although it has resulted more generally in
a strong science tradition through its transformation through Islamic
science around 1000 years ago.

Other approaches, e.g. from Hindu  traditions of around 2000 BC, provide
different conceptual and analytical theory about exactly the same issues in
ways that do not privilege self-ish ness and what later came to be called
ego.

These alternative approaches place sense of thinking and feeling in a
secondary incidental role.  More recently, ethological approaches come to a
similar position.

I suggest, these replacement body-centric theory foundations that avoid
privileging thinking, consciousness and sense of self are important in terms
of the current discussion because they offer ways of simplifying and
resolving many of the problem  issues that are unresolved, and may be
unresolvable, from the currently widely-used self-centred design theory
perspectives. These problem issues include exploring the 'content' of
thoughts and the ways we use them.

From experience, applying body-centric approaches to analysing
design-related issues simply dissolves many of the problem theory issues
that have plagued design research. The difficulty, is it requires dropping
many  taken for granted theory assumptions - for example, our current
theorisations about emotions.

All the best,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI 

Senior Lecturer,  Design
Researcher, Social Program Evaluation Research Unit
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]

Director, Design-based Research Unit, Design Out Crime Research Centre

Member of International Scientific Council UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal

Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________



-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Keith
Russell
Sent: Monday, 4 April 2011 10:04 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The false dichotomy of theory vs practice in
desgin[was:NASA,Hasmat, etc.]

Dear terry,

in our reporting about our thinking, we are required, in the case of
English, to utter such thinks as "I think" -- which might be construed as a
privileging of the self and the consciousness of a self.

However, other than the logically positive moment in time whereby an
activity takes place in consciousness (that is, a thought occurred),
consciousness is typified by negative or analytical processes. That is, when
I announce the thought to a self (myself if you must), it is audited within
a cycle of production (materialization) and reception -- and hence there are
multiple moments and a self for each moment. If we negate the initial self
(I had a thought) and allow that maybe it was someone else who had the
though, in my thinking space (domain) then we have radically de-privileged
not the thought (it still is a hard positive moment)  but the soft positive
moment that I had the thought. Thinking now becomes a passive event in which
there is a non-I who apprehends that a non-I experienced a thought in a
thinking space that a non-I is open to engaging with.

This is ok, and it is fun to do it - it's call detachment in Buddhism - for
many people it is disturbing if not bordering on madness.

If one is interested mostly in the thinking process and not teh content then
this is a great game.

If one is interested in the thought itself (content) then it is silly and a
waste of energy. Yes, one can be interested in the content and not pay any
attention, by way of reflection on the origin or purpose of the thought.
This happens in the experience of "flow" which is enjoyed by many people.

cheers

not-Keith



 
>>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 04/04/11 11:50 AM >>> 
Dear Fil, Andy, Peter and all,

There is a temptation in making theory about this to over privilege
consciousness as the central process.

The obvious reason for this is human ego and selfishness as it is one's
thinking and consciousness and 'sense of self' that is making the case that
'it' (one's sense of self' as in 'consciousness' should be centre stage and
the most important way that any of these design related situations should be
viewed. 

There is an alternative more meditative perspective that gives rise to a
better, simpler and more coherent body of design theory.

An alternative is to view consciousness, sense of self and sense of self
having feelings and thoughts as a secondary artificial construction created
in the moment by each body. This perspective gives primacy in the
explanation to human bodies and their processes as the primary basis for
understanding design activity.

Usefully, it then enables design theories to integrate and cohere with
research and theories about other organisms, many of whom exhibit similar
activities to those that underpin creating a design. Perhaps more
importantly, this moves the discussion away from self perceptions that seem
all so important to individuals yet are problematic and often false when
subject to critical review. 

I suggest it is unhelpful to privilege self-perceptions and consciousness as
the basis for theories about design activity- even those about design
thinking or the use of designed objects and services.

Best wishes,
Terry