Dear Terry,

All these issues depend on the framework you choose and the purposes you need to serve. Since human beings use language to represent the world and to act within it, it seems reasonable to me to see most human actions within the framework of the languages that we use. For some, it is the use of language that distinguishes us as beings from most other kinds of being, and this means that using language is a different kind of activity than many other kinds of activities. 

For me, it is possible to think about, represent, describe, and summon a series of activities into being — as well as we might think about, represent, and describe a series of activities without acting or summoning them into being. Thought and language of some kind generally precede action and activities. For this reason, I’d stick with the model I suggested.

There are instances in which we can develop a sequence of activity on a quasi-instinctual basis using muscle memory and responsive flow outside the realm of language. This is the realm of great martial artists — you can see this in Miyamoto Musashi’s Book of Five Rings. The Cleary translation from Shambhala is especially useful because it also contains the house book of Yagyu Munenori. Another good book is Autumn Lightning by Dave Lowry, also available from Shambhala.

To reach this state of flowing practice requires years of training, coaching, and guidance — and words are indispensable along the way.

For me, this requires understanding the nature of mind and language. We are not divine creatures, so our words do not constitute an existential event in the ways that the words of a divinity might. Even so, language has special purposes in the life experience of human beings, and these purposes — both representative and constitutional — make the activity of language use quite different to most other forms of activity. 

We grow our minds through language and around language activity. This creates the lived experience and common bonds of humanity in ways that other activities do not. We become language users relatively soon after birth. We only become designers, engineers, or philosophers much later in life. This gives language a priority that lasts for most of a human being’s life, and language constitutes both the tool through which we represent the world and the tool that permits us (with additional tools) to active upon the world we conceive and represent.

It is clear that one may represent the world and the role of language in the human world in many ways. It is hard enough to explain all this in a serious book — or a series of many books, from George Herbert Mead and John Dewey to John Searle, John Austin, not to mention psychologists such as Ellen Langer, management theorists such as Mary Parker Follett and Ikujiro Nonaka, or economists such as Elinor Ostrom and Friedrich von Hayek. In different ways, all are conscious of the special role that language and communication play in the lines of action we undertake. 

There is no way to make a full case for this in an email. When we moved from Australia back to Sweden, we had 70% less bookshelf space than we had. I digitized about 5,000 books in my library. In sorting them and labelling the files I have been looking back across six decades of reading. I keep finding things I haven’t read in years, things that I’ve read and need to read again, and things I have long forgotten. I haven’t been able to explain any of these issues as well as they deserve.

If you want to propose other models of the relations between language and action, I accept that different models work well for different purposes. In my account of the world, language and mind have general roles that transcend most other actions.

Living with a dog during the best years of my life, I have a tendency to talk, to explain things, to inquire, and to ask questions. It has been my observation that when you interact with a smart dog through language, dogs develop a reasonable vocabulary of understanding. In some cases, my dogs have been able to understand relatively abstract instructions. While dogs are generally honest, I have found on one or two occasions that a dog can be deceitful or find ways to lie through deceptive action. I have also had a rather bossy dog — when I did not respond to his demands, he would stamp his feet like an angry child. 

Because dogs live with humans, they, too learn to use or respond to language in an interesting way. If that makes sense for dogs, I’d propose that it makes sense for designers. 

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/

Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia 



> On Jul 6, 2016, at 1:30 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ken,
> 
> Thank you for a delightful read. You have a great way with words.
> 
> In practical terms for  understanding design and improving design theory and practice, isn't it easier and more practically useful to view language and communication as sub-elements of function?  
> 
> This also aligns with the idea of seeing  communicating and languaging primarily in terms of them being activities alongside other activities, rather than straining to conceptualise  activities through the idea of languaging.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Terry


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