You both right and not right. You are right that it is difficult to
separate thinking and acting even for research purposes. On the other hand,
if we translate your problem into planning for action and executing the
action, the analytical definition of two phases might be much easier.

As far as the attitudes towards the "uncreative" western culture, I will
afford to comment as a non-westerner. Which other culture has created space
shuttles, BMW's, Boings, and computers? Western culture may not be very
good, but which other culture you will recomend me? I want to go and study
it, and latter on contribute to the development of the humankind by
possibly creating a biological methods for flying, like the yogas.


At 10:12 AM 11/7/2000 +0100, Tim Smithers wrote:
>In his message [Sun, 5 Nov 2000 12:08:34, Subject: design
>knowledge & phd] Alain Findeli wrote:
>   "I believe our current Western, i.e. dualistic, agnostic,
>   materialistic, thinking patterns are not "creative" enough
>   to figure out, indeed to design, what I and others
>   consider to be one of the key issue in this matter: the
>   exact nature and quality of the relationship between
>   thinking and acting ..."
>Doesn't this suffer from the dualism that it complains of?
>For there to be a relationship between thinking and acting
>they  must be different things. Are they? Are thinking and
>acting really of different categories, as you seem to
>suggest? I think they are not.
>Descart would, of course, want us to believe thinking and
>acting are different things.  Acting and actions change
>the (physical) world, the 'world out there', whereas
>thinking is what minds do, and whatever minds do they
>don't change the world out there, though thoughts can lead
>to actions that do, by some means that Descart neglected to
>make clear for us.
>Sketching, for example, is commonly thought of, and quite
>widely accepted as, an important kind of thinking in
>various kinds of designing.  Separating out what is
>supposed to be the thinking from the acting in sketching,
>as is done in many protocol studies of sketching in
>designing, misses the fact that it is the motions of the
>hand and arm that draws the thinking along.  Literally!
>This thinking, and the perceptions of the drawn marks, in
>turn, form the further sketching motions. The thinking
>would not happen here without the actions, or, at least,
>would not happen in the same way. And nor would the
>actions happen, or, again, at least not in the same way.
>Even walking along the street is a kind of thinking for
>me. I only think about certain things and only think in
>certain ways when I am walking.  This is probably only a
>matter of habit, and not something necessary, but it's
>true all the same.
>So, trying to understand designing in terms of what
>designers think, where think here means what minds do,
>makes little or no sense to me.  Just as trying to
>understand designing only in terms of the movements of the
>hand over the drawing board would not make any sense
>Best regards,
>Tim Smithers
> CEIT, Donostia / San Sebastián