Its much easier and appears to make better epistemological sense to define 'problem' in terms of human physiology.
At a surface level of theory making, 'problem' can be defined as something that affects human pain and pleasure systems in ways that predispose to produce a response.
Both lived experience and imagogenic representations (thoughts) of lived experience can cause this effect.
A more sophisticated and causal definition of 'problem' involves describing the detail of actions of individual body processes in the amygdala etc
The advantage of these two approaches is they avoid the spurious connection between 'problem' and 'the objects that are conceived as part of problems' (the same epistemological problematique as when 'creativity' or 'beauty' are attributed to the properties of objects). It also avoids the drift into specifying 'problem' as a concept in ideological or mentalist epistemological frames.
Even better, it offers a great basis for defining the roles of 'problem' in relation to a more coherent and causal explanation of designing, emoting, feeling, creative thinking etc.
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love
Curtin Research Fellow
Design-focused Research Group
Dept of Design, Curtin University
PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Tel/Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629 (home office)
+61 (0)8 9266 4018 (university office)
[log in to unmask]
____________________
Visiting Research Fellow
Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School, Lancaster University
Lancaster, UK
[log in to unmask]
____________________
Conselho Cientifico
UNIDCOM
IADE, Lisboa
Portugal
____________________
|