chuck,
i was just responding to the remarkable synchronicity of keith using the
same situation that i had used as a starting point for my discussing and
demonstration of the meaning of artifacts.
affordances, which keith mentions, reside in sensory-motor coordinations,
not in the artifact, not in the physiology of the actor, but in the
interaction of both. this is what j.j.gibson taught us: to use words
(conceptions) that address the interface between the two, neither to
mentalize artifacts, nor to physicalize objects.
sorry, i had not intended to make the connection to sensory motor
interaction a big issue in this context but i hope the above expands at
least a little bit on what you felt was missing. i can't reproduce a whole
paper on the subject here.
klaus krippendorff
gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture
the annenberg school for communication
university of pennsylvania
3620 walnut street
philadelphia, pa 19104.6220
phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H)
fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H)
usa
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Burnette User [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 10:51 PM
To: klaus krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: design cognition and coke bottles
On 5/26/04 10:35 PM, "klaus krippendorff" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> i am using that scene to develop a new approach to
> a theory of meaning for artifacts, one that is embodied in the interaction
> among people (sensory-motor coordination to tie it to a previous
> discussion) which bypasses the epistemological problems that semiotics has
> created for itself.
Klaus, You really can't drop a sentence like that on the crowd without
further explanation. Please? (Especially the sensory-motor coordination
part.)
Best,
Chuck
|