Dear Terry,
I stated earlier that I was not addressing your full argument. I gave an example of a conceptual problem. This is not a "nominalisation." It is a colloquialism. There is a difference. If, on the other hand, you think this is an ontological issue, we're not likely to resolve anything. Certainly not when you read a minor point as a full argument and label this "doing a Ken."
It is time for me to leave this thread. Johann and Keith raised good distinctions. I see no reason to go further.
Ken
Terry Love wrote:
--snip--
Here we go. Same ontological issue as definition of design - different hats.
We already have a word for the process of 'having a swim'. It is 'swimming'. The idea of 'a swim' is a nominalisation, just as using the rhetoric trick of attacking a single point in an argument rather than addressing the main issues might be called 'doing "a Ken"'.
--snip--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|