The temperament of this book:

Through the first chapter one can roughly feel the temperament of the whole book. The main point it emphasizes is that design imagination should detach itself from reality. Actually, this somewhat goes off track from the concept that design, life, and reality are connected, but the authors believe that if reality itself is already a mess, escaping from it actually means jumping out of its limitations to find new hope to imagine another possibility. It is a kind of temporary pause; being physically in the world while conceptually detached is a way of exploration. (I think what they are essentially saying is that fantasy in design is not guilty, as long as it stays connected to reality; as long as you don’t leave both materially and consciously, it’s still design.)

Overall, the first chapter’s point is to imagine boldly philosophical fiction. Our imagination is another kind of reality that exists in another place, with another sense of time and way of thinking. For example, some high-intelligence species may exist in gaseous form and breathe through their buttocks, or not breathe at all , living forever. Does that count?

Some thinkers believe that impossible things cannot even be imagined, so whatever we can imagine is already possible. (The first chapter feels somewhat self proving; for professionals, it’s just so so, since most people would already agree with them anyway.) Therefore, one should avoid binary thinking, such as true versus false, good versus evil.

‘But we are designers of physical things.‘

(Dunne, Anthony; Raby, Fiona. Not Here, Not Now: Speculative Thought, Impossibility, and the Design Imagination (p. 26).)

According to my overall understanding, Dunne and Raby do not mean that we shouldn’t make assumptions close to reality, but rather that being too close to reality will fall into the trap of feasibility, which doesn’t help in creating scenes that aim to provoke reflection , it only hinders them.

In short, my way of constantly asking questions may be exactly what they want , don’t let things land, keep them in discussion. Then what exactly is philosophical fantasy?

Philosophy fiction:

I think the philosophical fiction they pursue is essentially Kafkaesque in its insight and narrative approach , allegorical, open, and deep , rather than focusing on authenticity, familiarity, or feasibility. It uses familiar elements to construct strangeness, directly pointing to deep philosophy fiction. There’s a sense of “the observer sees clearly.”

But honestly, asking the public to think philosophically in a fantastical way is as hard as climbing to the sky. It will only raise the threshold higher and higher. And what exactly is philosophical fantasy? The definition is hard to explain. Joe Lindley once emphasized that the speculative essence of such work is worldbuilding, where participants can experience this world and connect with it, and then start to think , but is creating a philosophically fantastical world realistic?

I think it’s a good potential practice. But how can this process of construction stay ungrounded? Or is “not landing” the goal itself?

If someone suddenly says during the construction process, “This inspiration actually came from a tree in front of my house,” and what they think of is a very down-to-earth event that happened under that tree in a particular time and among particular people , for example, sitting under the tree checking bills , does that mean the philosophical fantasy collapses? Or as long as they keep an observer’s stance, is it fine?

Is this a kind of high-level sensibility purely based on intellectual thinking? A privilege that belongs to people with philosophical interests or backgrounds?

So the question returns to privilege: how many people can engage in philosophical fantasy without considering reality? How much money and time are needed to build such a scene?

What is an object? Why emphasize the object:

Must everyone together make something visible and tangible? Why emphasize that?

Maybe because even the most abstract object provides a foundation for imagination. This goes back to the initial paradox: we are supposed to detach from reality, but it’s still design. This also relates to the boundaries between design and other disciplines. But I feel the authors don’t care, they don’t care what design is, nor what is possible. What they care about is design itself , its iteration and evolution.

Who is the audience:

After emphasizing that imagination is invincible, the authors continue to develop theories to promote imagination. But is this important? Maybe most people haven’t even started to imagine? Or do they think that once people realize this issue, someone will naturally start doing it, so they only need to move one step ahead to provide new references for those already at the forefront?

Their book, in fact, is always written for academic people ,those who are already in this field and thinking about it. They hope to influence more designers, not more of the public. They also don’t want to discuss public participation issues, although many others are already doing that, and we could even say they gave everyone the opportunity to continue that discussion. But it’s obvious that they themselves don’t want to talk about it.

How to participate:

Essentially, it’s still ungrounded , always flying in the air.

Dunne & Raby are not against interpretation, but against instant incorporation. They want to preserve the first moment of estrangement, to let you be briefly stunned by absurdity. As for how you later interpret it or relate it to reality, they don’t care , that only proves imagination has already been triggered.

The Art of Questioning course last year actually had some of this temperament. Everyone naturally discussed Kafka’s works , that process was, but actually also uncontrollable. Some people just like to keep relating everything to themselves. What can we do? The ones who talk the most hold the power.

I feel that so-called free discussion is, in essence, unfree. Class and power differences will naturally appear in all group activities. Even under the fairest distribution, the person who makes the distribution rules , isn’t he or she the one with more power? If that person deliberately weakens themselves later to maintain balance, does that make them weaker? But when it’s time to redistribute, don’t they regain power again?

In short, power must flow , fairness is impossible. The experience of participation can never always be good. But you can wait for the moment when it’s your turn to take charge. You might even overthrow the so-called philosophical fantasy, and everyone just meditates together.