Pen, swords, nature, natter

anyway people that are obsessed with guns and targets and that type of mentality have little value to me. pen is mightier than sword.

Who said that you got to be able to think (with or without penis) to design. Look all around you. Look at nature. Nature designs. Does it think ?


whether you are decartian or sartian it doesn’t matter. didn’t you think when you wrote your sentence?

no way. it was nature pulling letters out of your mind. we are just imagining things!

Hey, I was writing not designing.

yeah but design is a form of writing.

In philosophy, the abstract noun “design” refers to pattern, or to purpose/purposefulness (or teleology). Design is thus contrasted with purposelessness, randomness, or lack of complexity.

to have a goal or purpose in mind

i have studied biomimicry so i have had to deal with this aspect of design.

here there’re several issues you should consider:

1- nature alone, or the way it solves or rather evolves is not enough for a complete design because when structures or solutions are analysed you come across many imperfections which could be ignored by nature in a random way but in a user world they tend to slip and will cause complications which need to be adressed.
2- nature has a system that is too exclusive, almost undefinable as design because of a chaotic order that is in contrast with man made engineering rules derived from physics and other sciences.
3- different species live in cycles, sometimes they transform, go through metamorphosis, take several forms until they develop and then the cycle restarts again. in a man made world this fluidity is unreachable at the moment. i’m not saying it can’t be done but what are the benefits or drawbacks? how long would it take to develop such systems and why?
4- man by “nature” is creative, idealistic and spontaneous when it comes to creation. but nature is completely the opposite. the math/art combo is not there the way nature carries it out.
5- the economy of nature is different from the economy of the man made world although they are in constant relation.
6- man needs different objects that function and look differently from what nature has to offer. we see works of architecture and design that resemble things in nature but they wander off to some other things like ie lighting becomes more important than surface or vise versa.
7- nature lacks spirit. symbolism in art created by man throughout history validates this point that man is not satisfied with simplistic reasoning of nature. there always is this spiritual extention whether it is concious or subconcious it’s undeniable.

Ok, I loose the word game. Giving due respect to the current use of the word in the English language - I accept its marriage to purposefulness. But does not design involve serendipity ? and by this definition of design do we not wrongfully exclude the designs of life forms ?

when analysing this we should consider the whole system as one system consisting of sub systems. then come other factors like assimilation, dissimilation, congruency, detachment, extension, retraction, and all other dimensions which could introduce a possibilty. so there’s no doubt serendipity is involved but to invoke such a thought that it’s one dimensional would be simplistic.

that’s why design can’t guarantee such vast and broad zone covering when implemented. it would just take years of research to identify and define accurately those dimesions let alone simulate a model based on those possibilities or non possibilties.

Is not a tree, a fish or animal (including our selves) complete design? Do not man made designs have complications? Are not life forms bettered designed to take care of the complications that arise in the life the design ? Are not the designs of nature infinitely better than what any collection of designers scientists can come up with for a specific design problem in the domain of life?

The chaos here may be an issue of old fashioned simplistic scientific belief – which is rapidly embracing complexity and is able to see order in disorder. There is no man made engineering rules. There are only man understood engineering rules. Because nature is not limited by lack of understanding it is able to make better use of rules that are yet to be understood by man.


The design process, often starts as a sketch moves on to models, keeps changing somewhat fluidly developing greater levels of detail towards the end. There seems to be some similarity.

[quote]4- man by “nature” is creative, idealistic and spontaneous when it comes to creation. but nature is completely the opposite. the math/art combo is not there the way nature carries it out.
Man is making an unfair argument here, by defining him self as creative. Look around. There is plenty of evidence of creativity achieved through a different process. When you stand up very complex physical equations are being solved to keep you upright. Man achieved this only relatively recently, and relatively crudely. So nature got the Math. Man look at Woman – design of nature. So nature got the art. So nature got the combo. Is not man part of Nature – we should not disqualify him, just because he got that math/art combo.

This is very true, though man is massively inefficient in the use of resources. No 1 species in polluting the planet!

This is man’s problem. Nature got nothing to do with it. Man needs food, Woman and a bit of excitement. I think nature provides it. Nature may be offended by mantrying to mimic it badly we do not know.

Man may not understand the spirit of nature. It is inappropriate to say that nature lacks spirit, especially when some well known religions believe in the spirit of nature. The working’s of nature is vastly complex. How can you call it simplistic ?

Nature is not responsible for Man’s spiritual problems – caused by the little bit of extra intelligence – which has caused so much damage to Nature. Nature screwed up here. Hey other than that, nature great at design.

nature was not created to be complete. as man was not created to be perfect, whether physical or spiritual. we say things like “i wish i could fly” or “be invisible” or “read exactly what’s in the mind of the person sitting next to me” etc but can we do these things in a natural god given way? certainly not. same with other creatures.
as for the second part, again depends on your philosophical view. there’re purists who are for a neo geo type of life kinda like hippies were in 60’s. then at the other side of the spectrum are those who search in nature and take it apart believing it can be put together in a better way later as we progress, then there’re those who take a more democratic stance mixed with scientific facts and reasoning availble which btw is the current trend. but none imo have solid back up for what they claim.

order in disorder is fragmental. meaning you pick a colony of ants for instance and see how they move. their individual movements is chaotic but the columns they make can be studied based on ordered patterns. but it’s hard to say why the next colony doesn’t follow the same pattern of columns when viewed in contrast to the first colony.
so it’s a paradox because man makes the rules based on his self made bioengineering or biochemical explanations but scraps or rebuilds it later due to new observations on for instance climate or seasonal change! just as much as our understanding is limited so is our design.
i also disagree that “nature is not limited by the lack of understanding” because even if we look at nature as a pure system without any interference, ornate, or wasteful reasoning the chances that it will enhance our design are not better because human beings are endowed with more advanced (even if destructive in the end) sensitivity toward selection than nature. for instance when it rains trees get water but if it floods they get destroyed. that’s not a perfect design. a perfect design would be if a tree could fly to somewhere else, then come back later. instead water takes the seeds (if there’re any seeds at that time on it) and spreads them. so it takes another cycle. i don’t know of any trees that can fly and come back although trees are probably one of the oldest living organisms on earth.

maybe in a symbolic or immitative sense, but in a real sense i haven’t come across any objects that can perform metamorphosis by themselves. i think programming and AI has created some possiblities but right now disney is as close as you can get! that’s probably why he got the most oscars for his animations!!

what i meant was nature can’t reflect on itself. have you ever seen the waves in the sea stop and look at the other waves coming to shore and say: “oh i don’t like that one it’s too far on the right”. but we judge ourselves and others and do a thorough job at it.


i guess that’s the theme in most mythology.

depends whether you see spirituality as a seperate phenomenon-this is a long discussion out of the scope of this post but to make it short you need proof that spirit is something other than god’s will.

also depends on whether you think man is part of the nature or in your view part of the spirit of nature.

Not to brag but I know Yo better than most and I am certain that although he has strong opinions there is no better, more passionate or informed designer. I can not imagine disgarding his opinion even if it leaves a mark sometimes. He always has an interesting point and is a staunch advocate for our profession.

set him up with liz taylor.

I’d rather have the most powerful gun then the best pen.

(then I would shot you with the most powerful gun and take such a cool pen) Win Win situation.

please do not start the pen is argument again !


UFO has things to say, He has a point of view. He is willing to spend his time. Perhaps he thinks its important to do so. No point advising him. He seems to be beyond advise. What about getting back to the point ?