I too have been lurking on this one - a bit too much to say - however, I would
like to point tio an aspect of the emotions debate - Freud proposes that where
the ID was there shall the EGO be - in a similar way I think we need to propose
that where the AFFECT was there shall the EFFECT be - that is, we need to
understand that ratio is the source of rational - when we can locate an affect
in relation then it is part of a ratio and then can be seen as part of an
effect structure.
keith russell
communication - newcastle
[log in to unmask] wrote:
> To Mary "the lurker" and All,
>
> To be or not to be is the question - or is it? I my theoretical world "to
> be" is closely related to the concept of the concious. To become concious
> of whatever, including design(ing), requires an effort - energy. You are
> making whatever was there before unconcious, and you are contacting your
> unconcious level to select out from your memory what becomes part of your
> being in that instant. Many theoreticians have put labels on that driving
> force that you use to form you presence (being) in that given moment. Some
> call it motives/motivation, others needs/sense of
> unfulfillment/unsatisfaction, others call it emotion. So, when you
> appreciate, try to understand or create a design your conciousness is
> focused on that design (your being at that moment), and your emotions must
> be somehow related to that design and associated thoughts. However, when
> your being is focused on making love or other activities your being at that
> moment has little to do with design - or can it be combined?. We are
> complicated, multidimensional beeings, and can therefore be many things at
> different times, but only a limited number of beings in any one given
> instance. Emotions are always present, but not necessarily constructive or
> positive ones. You can be bored, enraged, envious etc., and even these
> emotions can result in designs.....ask any artist. Does this answer your
> question: where does emotion and being fit (into psychological theories of
> individuals)?
>
> On the other hand I would like to take issue with the other part of your
> statement. I believe designing and evaluating designs always involve
> emotion and being - not often as you state. How can you possible design or
> evaluate (feel - have emotions) without being (mentally present)? On the
> other hand design(ing) is also more than just being and emotion. It goes
> beyond the individual (groups of designers, users, etc.) and the living
> (the material world).
>
> Brynjulf Tellefsen, Associate Professor
> Institute of Knowledge Management
> Norwegian School of Management
>
> mary catharine johnsen <[log in to unmask]>@mailbase.ac.uk on 07.11.2000
> 21:47:26
>
> Please respond to mary catharine johnsen <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Sent by: [log in to unmask]
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> cc:
> Subject: thought/action
>
> >From a lurker:
>
> In the discussion of thought and action, is there
> room for "being" and "emotion"? Are being and emotion
> included in both thought and action, or are they something
> else, or does it depend on the culture or time period?
> To me, design is often about being and emotion.
>
> Mary Kay Johnsen, Special Collections and Design
> Librarian, Carnegie Mellon University
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|