Dear List
I am a PhD student and hopeful of a hearing on questions about DesignX, a thread that does not seem to have been greatly discussed.
The DesignX manifesto appears to present quite a radical proposition. It strikes me that the design community is effectively being invited to consider an apparent paradox; that involving the simultaneous processes of emergent, self-organising complexity and those of deliberate, intentional design (or ‘sovereign design’). Thus, starting from first principles as a student must, I should be grateful for some clarification on the keywords employed by DesignX, the basic concepts and the overall context.
1. DesignX does not seem to explain what it means by the term ‘complex’, the phenomenon we are called upon to address. One assumes the term refers to the parent paradigm of complexity. At its core, however, complexity is concerned with emergent phenomena, something DesignX doesn’t mention. Possibly DesignX refers to another kind of complexity that doesn’t involve emergence? But that doesn’t seem right either because, as DesignX observes, “Above all, there is that word systems”. Thus, the logic seems to be; complex + systems = Complexity.
2. If that is so, then a complexity-orientated design manifesto that does not distinguish between design and self-organisation seems, on the face of it, rather like an evolution-based design manifesto that does not distinguish between design and evolution. Some guidance on this apparent problem would be welcome.
3. Indeed, DesignX omits reference to all natural scientific paradigms of thought. For 150 years, it has fallen to evolutionary models to explain what Richard Dawkins has called “the improbably complex”. Over recent decades, the developing field of complexity has presented another kind of explanation, a cross-domain account of interactivity between organic, inorganic and human systems. While these explanations remain largely independent of each other, they do have a certain amount in common. All natural processes operate without goals and these processes are cumulative. We start where we find ourselves.
So where does DesignX position itself in that context? For instance, does it see the models of evolution and emergence progressing side by side but separately (like Dawkins and Wolfram refusing to acknowledge each other’s account)? Does it see evolution subsumed within complexity (as Kauffman has implied)? Or does it seek to avoid a natural scientific stance (by, say, relying on a purely human account of the 'complex')?
Looking back through the list, I note that Bernstein is cited as a test of propositions (“I would insist that any proposal for a … radically new theory contain a clear explanation of why the precedent science worked. What new domain of experience is being explored by the new science, and how does it meld with the old?” 1993: 17-18). While DesignX does not claim to be a theory, it does seem to take a propositional stance using the distinctive language of the complexity sciences and it does appear to position designers in relation to that paradigm of thought, indeed exclusively so. So the test seems a fair one.
I note Ken Friedman’s response (16.12.2014) to Matthias Arvola’s arguably general question on DesignX, suggesting that “it will take four or five months to write a proper reply”. I am not thinking of anything like that. Rather, I should be glad of a general response i.e. of a kind that offers a PhD student some sense of the thinking behind the DesignX project.
Kind regards
Mike
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
