terry,

again, i see you are going overboard with misreading what was said -- and i can't speak for ken. you take your definition of design as generally acceptable, and then conflate what we had been discussing, and (dis)agreeing by roping irrelevant contingencies into your argument.

i have not suggested that design can be done only by humans and am not really interested in such essentialist assertions. surely, birds build nests and termites build huge hives. there is a question of whether they could do otherwise. for me, designs would have to be innovations. one could argue that each bird's nest is different and made from what its environment provides. i would not want to go so far as saying that plants design their shape. we did not deliberate on whether design is uniquely human or its generalization to animals, gods, or machines. 

christiano, ken, and i talked of human agency with ken agreeing with me that it is unlike the physical connections between technological devices. there are all kinds of human agents, designers being one (or more than one) kind. 

you say that problems and contradictions occur for example when designers use tools, information, embodied knowledge, etc.  if you claim that the use of tools or having bodies lead to contradictions of defining human agency, show me a few contradiction. your statement does not make any sense to me. we all have bodies and use tools, whether as designers or in ordinary life.

you argue against a proposition that 'design is only human activity' which is not mine nor have i read it in any of the discussions other than in your email.

to me, your equation of a design with a specification and a designer with someone who or something that creates specifications is highly problematic. it derives from engineering during the industrial era, where engineers where functional parts of institutional structures and given the authority to issue instructions to subordinate others in that structure. i have worked in engineering offices where this was the case. however, all of my subsequent experiences tell me that one can program computers that way but designing in the service of and perhaps participation with people wouldn't work with an authoritarian perspective. i for one prefer not to be theorized as writing specifications or computer programs. i see myself as an agent in a supporting role and with responsibilities to others.

in the end you state "THE key definitions ARE ...". why couldn't you be more humble and pose the question to designers of whether what they do could be defined that way?

cheers

klaus


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------