Dear Lubomir
Yep - I agree with what you say - but the issue for me can quickly be
found in the definition of "affordance" that says "Affordance is a
quality or a perceived quality of an object." The thought experiments
that Gibson undertakes in his work all involve "perceiving" qualities
rather than in listing "perceived" qualities. The listing is a
subsequent activity based on acceptance of the directness of perceiving
being granted the material status of a direct perception.
While Gibson goes a long way towards a phenomenology, he gets distracted
by the simplicity of a non-poetic account of directness. Gibson is happy
with love.
Nope, I'm not coming from Norman's cultures of perception.
cheers
keith russell
OZ newcastle
>>> "Lubomir S. Popov" <[log in to unmask]> 01/28/08 1:51 PM >>>
Dear Keith,
Affordance is a quality or a perceived quality of an object. Theory
of affordance is conceived in an ecological framework. Every time you
hear ecology, suspect Positivism and Materialism. There is a
difference between conceptualizing experience like a result of
human-environment interaction and the study of experience as a way to
understand the world. These are two different conceptualizations,
imply different methodologies, and epistemologies. I don't see much
of a phenomenology (in the Husserlian sense) in Ecological
Psychology. Ecological Psychology is soaked with Positivism and
systems thinking. Actually, maybe a benign version of a more
enlightened Positivism. For me, it is too much on the Positivist
side. I admire Bronfenbrenner, and actually use a lot of his staff.
Long ago he was one of my deities, together with Roger Barker
(environmental psychology, behavior setting). I still believe I can
make something out of the behavior setting concept in my theoretical
pursuits. I often refer to these scholars, Barker in particular.
However, I am aware of the shortcomings of the paradigm and wish I
can go further away from it. I would rather work with Goffman and
Burke when researching environment and behavior interactions.
It is quite possible that you conceptualise affordance in a slifghtly
different way, in particular if your background is in HCI. In that
field, Norman introduces slightly different tilt and more emphasis on
the perceived properties, but still stays in the framework of eco and
systems thinking.
Sorry, I am going for the night. It is getting late here.
Have a great evening at the other end of the world,
Lubomir
At 09:00 PM 1/27/2008, Keith Russell wrote:
>Dear Lubomir
>
>You point out that the concept of affordance is related to materialist
>thinking - but only if one wishes it so. Gibson allows a directness in
>the experience of things that is a directness of experience, not a
>directness of things. Giving oneself over to/finding oneself
>expereincing directly, does not make the thing any more real than a
>phenomenological apprehension. Indeed, they might usefully be treated
as
>the same.
>
>My left field email (earlier) was a pediction we would end up here.
>
>cheers
>
>keith russell
>OZ Australia
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Lubomir wrote, in part:
>
>Let me mention that the concept of affordance is at disciplinary
>level (including multi- or inter- in this reading). In this regard,
>the concept of affordance can not serve for resolving the fundamental
>question of philosophy. By the way, the concept of affordance is
>related to materialist thinking. The very idea that the material
>world affords implies that there is a material world that affords the
>realm of ideas. Extreme idealism claims that the idea has controls
>matter.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
|