Forum Message

Topic: Re:Design
Posted by: Jon Edwards
Date/Time: 01/02/2003 12:54:59

Hi John, Lewis, roBman,

Thanks for a stimulating discussion!

A few points -

1. Design vs. Modelling

As well as the differences already mentioned, for me, one of the most important differences between Design and Modelling is that Modelling has the potential to add genuinely new behaviours/patterns/states to the modeller's repertoire. I have huge respect for my unconscious' creative abilities (I use a similar strategy to the one Rob described in the previous thread), but I think that it is limited to creating new combinations of "chunks" that it already knows. That can be very valuable, but it's a different order of learning/change.

This has been a big learning point for me as I've been trying to put into practice what I've read in WITW and on this forum. On a slight tangent, I also feel that the more I "loosen-up" or even suspend my sense of self (the "self-concept" Lewis discussed in a previous thread) - in all contexts - the more I seem to learn, and the more my natural modelling abilities (Mirror Neurons?) seem free to "do their thang" without me needing to be consciously aware of it.

2. "Accidental" Design

Let's not limit the use of Design to deliberate, planned Design. Many of my best Designs (using Rob's wider frame of reference) just bubble up, seemingly from nowhere, without my having asked my unconscious to address a particular issue. A trivial example -

Watching the movie "The Matrix", seeing those much-copied fight-scenes where the action freezes and the camera pans round the transfixed figures, I thought, "Wow, that would be a cool way to do a 3rd Position - freeze the dissociated image of yourself in the context, then pan the 'camera' smoothly round to get multiple perspectives"


Given that Design is a different order of pattern-creation than Modelling, to reduce the potential limitations with Design, would it be useful to codify a set of phases and criteria for producing a Design-Pattern? A rough example -

i) Accidentally or deliberately, the Designer creates a pattern.

ii) She tests and refines the pattern, until she can reliably and repeatedly perform it - unconscious competence.

iii) She defines the results that she experiences from applying the pattern (which give the criteria against which effective transferability can be measured)

iv) From here, follow the same procedure as for Modelling - codify a representation/description, test and refine for effective transferability, document the pattern using the criteria specified in WITW (making clear that the source is Design, not Modelling) - similar to Phase 4 and 5 of the Modelling procedure.

Hope that's useful!

Cheers, Jon

Entire Thread

TopicDate PostedPosted By
Design31/01/2003 16:12:06Lewis Walker
     Re:Design31/01/2003 18:07:00John Grinder
          Re:Re:Design01/02/2003 12:45:56Lewis Walker
     Re: more unconscious design...01/02/2003 01:25:28Rob Manson
          Re:Re: more unconscious design...01/02/2003 03:25:08John Grinder
               More or less unconscious design...02/02/2003 10:11:21Rob Manson
                    Re:More or less unconscious design...02/02/2003 15:50:14Jon Edwards
                    Re:More or less unconscious design...02/02/2003 19:38:15John Grinder
          Re:Re: more unconscious design...02/02/2003 02:36:22nj
     Re:Design01/02/2003 12:54:59Jon Edwards
          Re:Re:Design01/02/2003 16:20:23John Grinder

Forum Home