More thinking about what Simon says.
The range of interpretations of Simon is what I find striking in the recent
posts. They illuminate affordance in action, interpretation of the meaning
of the Simon texts through the lenses of differing interests, needs,
backgrounds, personalities and experience. I see the comments ranging from
what Simon was like and what he originally meant to what Simonąs insights
can and might mean to design, designing and designers today.
Original intent can be useful and interesting, but it can also be a
colonizing of the present by the past. Simon may have been a positivist but
philosophical thinking has moved on, giving new insights into what existing
and preferred situations mean, who and how people are involved in designing,
and a deeper understanding of languaging in design communication. That Simon
thought about designing through a scientific outlook that took its
vocabulary for granted neednąt diminish our appreciation today of his basic
insights or hinder their further accommodation and development in design
thinking.
Jerry
On 9/2/13 8:15 AM, "CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> A further thought on reading Simon. It is important to know how to read
> Simon's the Sciences, including his so called flawed definition ( I have
> already explained how it is not a definition in the classical sense, biut a
> focal meaning!)
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant
Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
and Community Service € University of Oregon
2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
€ e-mail: [log in to unmask]
€ web: http://pages.uoregon.edu/diethelm/
€ 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
€ 541-206-2947 work/cell
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|