I happened upon an article that appeared in Harpers back in September 1988 ("Against PCs," p. 17-18). It might explain the high-tech solar panels in the picture of Wendell Berry in 2011: "Like almost everybody else, I am hooked to the energy corporations, which I do not admire. I hope to become less hooked to them. In my work, I try to be as little hooked as possible. A a farmer, I do almost all of my work with horses. As a writer, I work with a pencil or a pen and a piece of paper."
He might have more of a solar-fed flow of electricity now, but I'd bet he doesn't have a "PC"!
Although there are questions that require generalizable or “approaching universal” answers, I find that, as I get older, the more interesting (and dare I say, richer and more valid) questions are those that seek to understand the individual hearts of experience. I can probably get away with that more being of psychology. All that to say, great read, Mark, and I need to add the authors to my reading list.
I agree about questions that need generalizable answers, and so does Berry. He calls that a "necessary kind of thought" (which, on second thought, I guess could be him damning with faint praise?). Your training in psychology may help you skirt the tyranny of abstraction. You have categories, but the facts of human interaction nibble at the edges of categories and probably allow for some individualistic and local embroidery.
Hendren's book is really engaging, and the first chapter, which begins with a guest to one of her classes, turns a lot of assumptions around about what "good" design is about. The podcast and the New Yorker article probably capture the way of this turn pretty succinctly. It's a good read for engineers, I'd say!
I happened upon an article that appeared in Harpers back in September 1988 ("Against PCs," p. 17-18). It might explain the high-tech solar panels in the picture of Wendell Berry in 2011: "Like almost everybody else, I am hooked to the energy corporations, which I do not admire. I hope to become less hooked to them. In my work, I try to be as little hooked as possible. A a farmer, I do almost all of my work with horses. As a writer, I work with a pencil or a pen and a piece of paper."
He might have more of a solar-fed flow of electricity now, but I'd bet he doesn't have a "PC"!
Although there are questions that require generalizable or “approaching universal” answers, I find that, as I get older, the more interesting (and dare I say, richer and more valid) questions are those that seek to understand the individual hearts of experience. I can probably get away with that more being of psychology. All that to say, great read, Mark, and I need to add the authors to my reading list.
I agree about questions that need generalizable answers, and so does Berry. He calls that a "necessary kind of thought" (which, on second thought, I guess could be him damning with faint praise?). Your training in psychology may help you skirt the tyranny of abstraction. You have categories, but the facts of human interaction nibble at the edges of categories and probably allow for some individualistic and local embroidery.
Being an artist and a poet helps, too. Greatly.
This line resonated with me: “Rather than remaking the human to fit the built world, the built world should meet the human”
Hendren's book is really engaging, and the first chapter, which begins with a guest to one of her classes, turns a lot of assumptions around about what "good" design is about. The podcast and the New Yorker article probably capture the way of this turn pretty succinctly. It's a good read for engineers, I'd say!