Dear Ranulph.
Hegel or Schlegel? What's the difference? Let's just have both?
Of course we have got both but that is not the achievement; that is the starting point.
First Year art students frequently suffer from and-itis which is the porridge of inclusiveness.
Consciousness is a difference engine; its basis is disjunction.
cheers
keith
>>> Ranulph Glanville <[log in to unmask]> 12/12/2012 8:54 pm >>>
Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the difference between those who understand the unavoidability of wicked problems and those who insist that they are a nothing, a deceit, than this "debate". Interestingly, the debate itself seems to be not unlike a wicked problem. There are those who want to divide the world and be right (where others are, thus, wrong): and there are those who see difference and confusion as advantages, giving us the chance to discuss and continue our investigations through a continuing, shared curiosity. I find it intriguing to see the exclusiveness of one side and the inclusiveness of the other, as I find it intriguing to note that as soon as one speaks in this way, one is perpetuating the exclusiveness argument. The difference, in logical terms, is between those who pursue an either-or logic, and those who prefer a both-and logic. While we pursue either-or, we will always have argumentative disagreement and exclusion; both-and offers us the acceptance of difference and inclusion.
Ranulph
On 12 Dec 2012, at 09:22, Tim Smithers wrote:
> Dear Terry,
>
> Notions of what is right and wrong are not what is needed
> here, I think. To ask or say what or who is right or wrong
> serves only to setup a false debate and establish ill-founded
> distinctions.
>
> Disagreeing with what Klaus says and/or the stance from which
> he says it does not make him or what he says wrong, nor right.
> It should make it interesting, thought provoking, and useful.
>
> Having a different and alternative point of view or
> explanation also doesn't make Klaus and what he says wrong.
> It does mean, however, that you need engage with what Klaus
> says (on this occasion) and carefully explain how you're
> alternative explanation differs from what he says and why,
> and how this leads us to something interesting and useful.
>
> Argument by assertion and empty value judgements won't do
> this.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tim
>
> ===============================================
>
> On Dec 12, 2012, at 09:27 , Terence Love wrote:
>
>> Hi Tim,
>> I would agree, if Klaus was right.
>> Klaus privileges language and frames his view of wicked problems through a
>> language lens regardless of whether it is appropriate or not.
>> The position described in Klaus' 6 points also depends on a particular view
>> of what it is to be human.
>> I've been suggesting there is a different explanation that goes beyond.
>> Best wishes,
>> terry
>>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|