Hi Klaus,
It's a matter of 'necessary and sufficient'.
Language doesn't provide 'necessary and sufficient' explanation of design
activity. Hence, it is inappropriate to view theorising about design
activity primarily through a 'language/communication' lens.
Similarly, viewing humans as unique creative beings is as false as a basis
for understanding and theorising about design activity.
Humans are primarily routine, 'robotic' beings in which creativity is
usually an illusion. Creativity, like will, is rare - and, from experience,
rare in artists.
Best wishes,
Terry
-----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 Klaus
Krippendorff
Sent: Thursday, 13 December 2012 3:29 AM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Wicked Problems
terry,
your response continues to reveal your blind spot.
you once claimed that design theory had nothing to do with language. i
challenged you to show me a theory that is free of language - informal,
mathematical, or graphical. you didn't respond and i guess because you
couldn't. (i couldn't either)
now you again claim that i inappropriately privilege language in stating
what a problem is. that claim and indeed everything we say on this list
takes place in language. it seems that you see language as transparent,
invisible, blanked out while speaking. i know, you are not the only one who
does this. but communicating of design becomes difficult if one participant
is blatantly unaware of what he or she is doing.
klaus
-----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 Tim
Smithers
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Wicked Problems
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|