Dear Klaus,

You last post is an interesting turn and it seems to me we are coming 
closer together.

First, let me start with what we get in common -- the concept of 
accordance. That is something I use in Environment & Behavior 
Studies. This concept, in several different variations, is at the 
foundation of one of the most productive approaches to 
people-environment (objects) interactions. In this regard, I see that 
we do not have differences.

Second, I will express some considerations. These should not be read 
as divisive, but as complementary, intended to explicate the 
differences in the process of further integration. I follow an old 
adage from Classical German Philosophy: Before we unite, let's 
differentiate (demarcate). This method leads to explication, 
consideration, and respect to the differences in the process of 
negotiating integration. The drive for negotiation is pretty old and 
it evidently is not patented by the new left.

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.

I don't see a problem with -isms as long as we do not overrely on 
them, as you imply. This is a philosophical legacy that still can not 
be neglected in philosophical discourse and disputes. It is a 
situation when our language influences us, but we can go further 
without it and have to use it.

I also think (like you, if I read you correctly) that it is not 
always necessary to relate to higher ground, unless our job is to 
explicate. There is a joke in the scientific community that those who 
can make science --make it, and those who can not make science -- 
make methodology. I feel offended by this joke, but I also feel that 
there is some useful truth in it -- it is more important to make 
practical science. Methodology is great, but staying only at 
methodological level very often doesn't lead to a product. As I 
mentioned before, many scientists have achieved tremendous 
breaktroughs despite of their proclaimed or explicit philosophical 
affiliations. This actually constitutes a whole problem area engaged 
with the logic and process of operationalization in science.

I am also relativist, but not in the sense that everything goes. I 
focus on the relationships and the emergence of the definition of 
phenomena in relation to each other. This said, I don't want to look 
like a conventional systems guy. I actually have a problem with the 
mechanistic logic of systems thinking. I would rather prefer a 
humanitarian equivalent. Maybe the semantic turn, may be something 
more interpretative. In this case I don't look at the interpretation 
as a hermeneutic action, but rather as a way to relate phenomena.

I also believe in methodological discipline. I prefer the logic of 
discovery or invention rather then the reliance on serendipity. There 
are certain procedures that lead to certain outcomes. There is also 
an alternative -- e.g. brainstorming. For me it looks like a monkey 
business. I resort to it when I feel methodologically bogged down and 
powerless.

Within this context, our defences in thinking are not that big. Some 
of our disagreements are based on ideological grounds. If we manage 
to control our political ideologies, we will can come remarkably 
close in scholarly terms. I also do not see reasons for ideological 
differences. Our position to the means of production is the same. 
This presupposes similar socioeconomic and political interests. If 
there are particular differences, they might be a result from 
different social experiences, participation in certain social 
experiments, disillusions,  etc., or on the contrary, an optimistic 
hope that when we all become equal, would not have problems anymore. 
These are just speculations.

I accept your appeal to resume our engagement with design research 
issues at a (inter-, multi- disciplinary level of discussion rather 
than spending more time on very general questions. At this point I 
will withdraw from the discussion and take a rest. Please feel to 
communicate to the list your attitude to this post if you want. I do 
not want to create a unilateral situation. However, if I don't reply, 
please assume that it is with the best intent to help focus on other 
issues, as you suggested.

Have a nice weekend,

Lubomir

At 01:33 AM 1/27/2008, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>dear lubomir,
>
>the distinction between idealists and materialists does not mean much to me.
>it has been beaten to death for the last 200 years and i don't want to be
>associated with either camp.  i am interested in practices of living, not in
>questions of knowledge and representation, but in what designers can or have
>to do to support various practices of living.
>
>let me leave isms behind and consider the more grounded concept of
>"affordance."  it was coined to suggests that we, as a users of technology,
>have our own conceptions of what we are facing and are acting accordingly.
>in fact we humans can hardly act otherwise (see aristotle's principle of
>non-contradiction applied to human interfaces).  for example, most computer
>users do not have a clue as to what actually happens inside the hardware of
>a computer.  even computer scientists have only abstract notions of how
>parts of it works - yet we are able to use computers,  how come?  because we
>do not insist that users know computers the way the really work (having
>accurate knowledge of what they really are) but that their conceptions are
>afforded when enacted - unless our interaction breaks down in heidegger's
>sense.  In the case of computers, the conceptions we are encouraged to enact
>are technically wrong but made to work by design of suitable interfaces.
>
>so, what we know of the world is either unproblematically afforded or not
>afforded at all, i.e., experienced as a disrupting our conception.
>affordance has nothing to do with representation, not even with abstract
>notions of "knowledge", but with enacting our constructions of the world.
>people who do not act on what they know are free to imagine any worlds they
>please.  unless they put their knowledge into practice, it doesn't matter
>what they believe and whether their knowledge bears any relation to what
>exists.  enactment and affordance is the key to knowing and this bypasses
>idealism or materialism
>
>when designed for use by others, technology needs to be designed to be
>afforded by available user conceptions or enable users to develop new
>conception to handle it.
>
>it is a mark of our democratic and market driven society, that most
>technologies afford many user conceptions, rarely one.  nor can we insist
>that the designers' conceptions of a design needs to be shared by users.
>therefore, the most important task of human-cantered designers is to design
>artifacts that afford the conceptions of all those who are targeted to use
>them and prevent all those who shouldn't use them from using them or getting
>into trouble when they do (e.g., medicine bottles for children).
>
>lets not get entangled in isms, debate whether computers exist (in fact we
>have a name for it and someone builds them), whether accurate knowledge of
>its architecture is achievable or desirable (i think it is neither), or
>whether historians are cameras or creative writers of their stories.  let's
>discuss concepts of design that are really important and change our
>conception from how we designers worked 100 years ago to what we have to do
>now.
>
>klaus
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
>research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lubomir
>S. Popov
>Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 9:21 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Roots, traps, constructions
>
>Dear Colleagues,
>
>At the beginning of the discussion I mentioned that we are sailing in
>philosophical waters. We talked about several interesting questions, and in
>a very natural way touched some basic issues in philosophy. We spent time on
>debates that are centuries old, almost as old as the alphabet and the
>written word. At times the discussion on the list was waged on political
>grounds. At times, we stood firmly for our positions. Even a bit more than a
>sophisticated flexibility would have allowed us.
>
>I mention this because I feel we are going nowhere. I see two definite camps
>that correspond to the two major sides on the historic divide between
>materialists and idealists. This is nothing new under the sun. We are going
>nowhere because many e-mails repeat the same argument, without flexibility
>or rethinking of the position. In some cases, we go into response to words
>and phrases rather to the general premises or the general spirit of the
>thesis. I personally have got exhausted. I bet that many other colleagues
>feel this way.
>
>Last April I had a friendly argument with a excellent sociologist about
>idealist philosophy. I was surprised by the complexity of the argument he
>presented. He was not an idealist, but evidently, he was well versed and
>could get in the "shoes" of both parties. He just wanted to show me that
>there is good rationale in claiming that the world is an idea. However, he
>imbedded the concept of the world as an idea in historical context and
>referred to a number of philosophers and philosophical systems.
>
>Idealists make a very sophisticated argument. Even the most extreme of them
>entertain very interesting approaches and complex conceptualizations. They
>are very convincing. Philosophy students become schizophrenic when they
>study history of philosophy and the professors dedicate a whole lecture for
>each philosopher or philosophic system. Each lecture is so convincing that
>after the third lecture students realize they switched sides three times and
>after the next lecture, they probably would adopt and follow the system of
>the next philosopher, until in lecture #5 they will change sides again. This
>is because of the complexity and sophistication of the argument, the
>reference to a multitude of caveats and considerations, and a multi layered
>philosophical system that each one of these great philosophers has created.
>By the end of the lecture students already have "converted."
>
>Idealists are more contextual, their thinking is very exoteric, and share
>more in common with the logic of humanities. Materialists are
>straightforward, explicit, and easier to grasp. Of course, all this is
>relative to one another and in no way I do not attribute such qualities to
>the parties on the discussion list. I am only sharing remarks among students
>after lectures, in the corridors and in the commons.
>
>The thesis that the world exists only through our senses and thoughts
>contributes to focusing our intellectual pursuits on the way we perceive,
>conceptualize, and construe reality. After we enter into this mode of
>reasoning, the basic postulate is not that important any more. Its role is
>fulfilled at that stage. New postulates are developed and they guide to the
>next level of concretization. This is a process of operationalization in
>which after several steps, the basic premises are completely dissolved in
>the myriad of new issues and problems that need to be solved. Work at
>disciplinary level can be done perfectly well without ever knowing are we
>materialists or idealists. Until we have to reflect and to explicate about
>our fundamental principles and assumptions. This happens mostly to scholars
>who work at the methodological (I mean methodology of theory, not of field
>research) and theoretical levels of their disciplines.
>
>With a hindsight, the discussion offered a number of opportunities to
>explore the complexities of interrelation between matter and idea, and
>between the fundamental question of philosophy and the ensuing influences on
>epistemological systems. I wish more flexibility and interplay between
>positions. The most interesting ideas emerge not in the process of strictly
>following the line, but in the exploration of marginal territories, the
>areas that change borders as they develop.
>I personally prefer these areas. And, I would  not hesitate to change
>positions if I see something new with a potential.
>
>Thank you for attention,
>
>Lubomir