hi, terry
here is the video you wanted to see: http://vimeo.com/86171855 for me your struggle with conceptualizing rationality comes from a universe that seems unlike mine.
the distinctions you make within the domain of rationality take rationality for given and celebrate it as a desirable human quality (with its opposite "irrationality" being not worth pursuing -- although you are not saying that). for you, rationality seems to be a quality of thinking or cognition. since i have never seen anyone thinking, i can SPEAK about my own and it would be a good idea for you to recognize that your notion is not generalizable to everyone else.
i would say, i can hardly think of thinking without articulating something which reflects back on what generated that articulation. using language (languaging), perceiving, acting, and thinking are all connected. i know, you have no place for exploring what the structure of language does to processes of design (we had earlier conversations that ended up dead on this and i do not want to open up what got us nowhere). i can listen to other people's ARGUMENTS an judge for myself whether it makes sense. i would not objectify my judgment to everyone else.
in my experiences, and i have written a lot about that, (although in order to avoid the trap of cognitive constructions that "rationality" gets you into, i am using rather different concepts) rationality is bounded by specialized discourses. physicists consider arguments rational that are consistent with the history of theorizing physic and are borne out by what physicist are trained to pay attention to. hindus live in a different world. theirs is irrational only to those not being familiar with that world. i guess hindu priests may not have much faith in the strange reality that physicists argue for. designers have their own way of recognizing and meeting challenges.
to me rationality is a discourse-specific (you could also say community-specific) way of accepting arguments as plausible, compelling, and hence acceptable in processes of conversation and reading someone else's writing. while the process of accepting or rejecting what has been said as plausible (with many variations between these two extremes typically available) probably is universal, the criteria for judging them rational, sub- or supra- or not at all can hardly be generalized.
i don't want to play up irene au lecture beyond simply saying that she was addressing a different dimension of design.
have fun
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 Terence Love
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 11:21 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Engineering and Culture -conflicts?
Dear Klaus,
You raise the issue of rationality in design research and understanding design activity. My feeling is the detail of rationality hasn't been addressed very well yet in any of the design literatures. Yet there are advantages in addressing this issue better.
One approach I find useful is to distinguish between people's activities via the progressive categories of:
1. Infra-rational
2. Rational
3. Supra-rational
These terms are viewed slightly differently by different authors depending on their depth of analysis. The version I've found useful is:
Infra-rational: when individuals operate subconsciously using their instincts, beliefs, subconscious conditioning, learning, habits, faith, conditioned training, direct emotional responses and subconscious intuitions without significant involvement in conscious rationalisation and reasoning.
Understanding in the case of infra-rational functioning is primarily by second-hand belief and second hand knowledge of others.
Rational: when individuals use conscious and aware rational reasoning about their experience of situations, in addition to their subconscious use of instincts, subconscious learning, habits, conditioned training, direct emotional responses and subconscious intuitions. All beliefs are doubted and assumed false. Understanding is limited to a combination of rationalisation about an individual's experience and residual second-hand knowledge of others and second hand belief.
Supra-rational: when individuals apply to rational reasoning to their experience to its limits. That is the limits of reasoning and rationality itself (rather than individual's personal limits due to lack of skill at reasoning and rationality). At this point, even after applying rationalisation and reasoning there exist some internal and external experiences that go beyond the real limits of rationality and reasoning.
These are included via awareness of the internal and external experiences.
Supra-rationality offers additional opportunities. Understanding is gained through conscious rationalisation and conscious awareness of an individual's personal experience, rather than being second-hand. Usually this involves practices of awareness of physicality, mindfulness and being.
Teaching and learning, skills and practices, religions, morals and norms usually operate primarily as infra-rational and occasionally extend into the rational.
A problem is many activities that are fundamentally infra-rational claim to be supra-rational. This is sometimes done to avoid rationality and reasoning, and sometimes simply to claim the higher level of functioning for the lower.
There are three tests: 1) do the activities depend primarily on subconscious processes, or beliefs in particular theories, ways of being etc., independent of rationality?; 2) has the individual reached the limits of rationality (rather than their personal skills at rationalising)?; and 3) Is the individual in conscious awareness of their experiences that they have found themselves to be beyond rationalisation and reasoning?
One of the reasons this differentiation between infra-rational, rational and supra-rational is useful is it differentiates between two very different forms of human internal functioning. On one hand this helps better understand users. On the other hand, it provides a basis for understanding the internal cognito-affective behaviours of designers whose personal development differs. It also provides a basis for some finer grained theory about creativity, intuition, the roles of different forms of design education, the connection between engineering and culture, and a variety of related issues in design research.
My guess is this differentiation of three categories of rationality underpinned Irene Au's keynote. >>snip from 3 questions for Irene Au> 'I have been exploring the mind-body connection and the impact mindfulness practices have on focus, empathy, and creativity. I am excited to share what I have been learning, drawing from my own experiences as well as scientific research. The principles of yoga and current research on the brain and body together form a blueprint for transformation.'
(http://interaction14.ixda.org/blog/questions-for-irene-au/ )
If you or anyone else has the full version of Irene's keynote I would appreciate a copy ([log in to unmask]).
Best wishes ,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI Director, Love Services Pty Ltd PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Krippendorff [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, 8 February 2014 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Engineering and Culture -conflicts?
I doubt that you
terry
as rationalist . . .
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
