lubomir,
before i respond to your post,
are you familiar with ludwig wittgenstein's approach to language
and with benjamin lee whorf's work on the correlation of language, thinking,
and acting?
i shall send you a paper on design discourse off line
- just so that i don't have to start totally from scratch
klaus 

  _____  

From: Lubomir S. Popov [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:03 AM
To: Klaus Krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: affordance - was Roots, traps, constructions



Dear Klaus,

It is very interesting how often we differ in our visions. I hope that some
day we will both benefit from this.

Yes, I believe that the main groups of discourses (I would say the main
paradigms) are incommensurate. Simply because they are based on completely
different ontological and epistemological beliefs. There is a drive towards
mix and match, picking the best from every paradigm with the intent to make
something new and better. I would say this is naive and scholarly
incompetent. People pick from other paradigms or discourses what they
believe is good from the  stand point of their own paradigm/position. They
do not realize this. In design, this is called eclectic. Same for science.
People who can not understand the underlying principles of a design movement
or style, or of particular paradigms, engage indiscriminately in picking
pieces and putting them together according to their own logic. However,
often they pick the worst from the other paradigms. I know you will disagree
with me and vehemently object this.

One anecdote, actually a real case. In one Ph.D. program in Chemistry, most
of the students were Chinese. There were a few American students. So, one of
the American students graduated and found a job in Seattle. After six
months, he married a Chinese woman. He sent a lot of photographs to his
former colleagues. They reviewed the photos, and one of the Chinese said: I
new that John is dumb, I new it. But I could not imagine he is so dumb -- to
marry the ugliest Chinese woman. If he had only told me he likes Chinese
women, I would have introduced them to the most beautiful girls from China.
What is the conclusion? That what we believe is the best from the other
paradigm, is the best from our standpoint. It might be actually be not that
good from the standpoint of the followers of the other paradigm. 

I would agree that there is some possibilities for exchange and transfer
between objectivist paradigms. There is a lot of exchange between Positivism
and Dialectical Materialism. However, I don't see much of a possibility for
this between objectivist and humanist paradigms (I will use this
terminology.) They can influence each one of the proponents of the other and
mostly marginal believers, but only to a certain degree, in an indirect way,
by gradually changing their believes. This is not a mix-and-match exchange,
but an ideological conversion at the higher levels of abstraction. I am not
sure how much exchange we can have between Hermeneutics and Phenomenology.
Some people can not make a difference between their logic and principles of
inquiry and claim they are almost the same. I would not. At least, I was
taught to belive that they are very different. I was also thought to see the
epistemological differences between Existentialism and Phenomenology. It is
all about training and experience. You might object. 

It is good that you make a caveat saying that the exchanges are possible
within the limits of the disciplines. I would like to emphasize this because
this statement of yours is important. We might be closer then you think and
as I mentioned before, our differences may not be that big. We have very
similar background in terms of education in design and social sciences.

I acknowledge many different approaches. I work with three paradigms.
Believe me, it is a pain when I have to switch between paradigms. It is more
painful then switching languages. I don't like that I have always reflect on
what I say and does it make sense in the current paradigm or discourse. I am
not perfect and believe that I mix and match unintentionally. Just like I
mix words when I speak a language that is not my forte. 

Acknowledging diversity of approaches is not relativistic. It is a
requirement of good methodological preparation. Accepting all kinds of
unprofessinal statements at face value is not relativistic either. It is
irresponsible. I will hyperbolize a bit to make my case. We can not accept
that every five-year old child has great ideas and deserves a grant to
materialize them. Too many ideas that are naive and poor will clog the
scholarly arena and will push out the ideas that deserve support and further
development. It is just like a search on the Internet: I get 2 million
entires, no matter how much you would like to narrow my search. The five
good pieces that I look for are probably somewhere there, but I don't have
the time to sift through millions of items. I understand that such an
approach slows down invention, but it also keeps some kind of sanity in the
field. You can also argue about who decided what makes sense. There are
institutional mechanism in science and we can not deny this. This issue is
also similar to the problem with the balance between tradition and
innovation. It is a complex question that deserves its own thread. 

Design and science have something in common. It is the intellectuality, the
consistency in thinking, the building of intellectual systems, based on
principles. Principles make decision making easier and help novices in the
field.

I have no problem if designers have their own ways to explore the world.
However, if designers want to make science and when they believe they make
science, they need to know that they start playing in the field of Science.
They have to follow the standards and norms of behavior of this institution.
Otherwise, it would not be science, it will be design. By the way, I have
mentioned at least a dozen of times on this list that I don't see a reason
why designers want to be scientists. I still believe that design has higher
regulation than science and designers look more interesting and spirited
than scholars. I still believe that design is more exciting then science.
However, who ever wants to do science, let him/her do it. But should do that
in a professional way, just like they do design. No epistemological Kitsch
please.

My concern is not with relativism. I adore relativism, but evidently of
different type.  My concern is with intellectual Kitsch. And the mentality
that anything goes. It is erroneous and it is dishonest. Yes, it is
dishonest. In reality, not everything goes. The gate keepers decide what
goes. It is human and it is normal. Everybody wants to defend their views,
to gather a group of supporters so that his views get institutionalized and
promoted. This is the way to the top (in science), in simple terms. I am not
sure that professors let all their students to write what they want. They
correct, they advise, etc. That is intervention. It shapes other people's
thinking. And it is accepted.

By the way, to relate to a previous post and to contribute to the spirit of
this one, I will mention a case with me. Many years ago I wrote a material
criticizing the psychological approach to environment &  behavior studies at
urban level. I made a case that a sociological (and culturological)
perspective is more holistic and productive, takes into account social
relationships and works with a richer picture and more considerations. This
idea went like a bombshell and was perceived as a major offence. Why? The
people who reviewed it were either psychologists or trained under
psychological influences. The case was made with references to both
psychological and sociological/culturological literature. However, the
psychologists didn't communicate with the sociological literature. This
happens everyday and people of high standing promulgate it, even when they
think that they are open for new ideas.

This is a complex problem and we can go for ever. So much for now.
Unfortunately, I have several tasks that can't wait.

Kind regards,

Lubomir



At 12:10 AM 1/29/2008, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:


dear lubomir,

so, you are saying that different discourses, different ways disciplines
have conceptualized what they do, result in seeing the world in
incommensurable ways.

to me the interesting thing is that the world affords quite a number of such
discourses, explanations, conceptual systems, which are productive of new
insights within experiential limits of their disciplines.

i do not think that acknowledging diversity of approached is relativistic
and it is rooted in people gathering data and analyzing them  in view of
what they wish to do.

i am suggesting the same to apply to design.  design has its own way of
exploring the world and necessarily construct a world that is different from
other disciplines.

klaus

  

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [ mailto:[log in to unmask]
<mailto:[log in to unmask]> ] On Behalf Of Lubomir
S. Popov
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:15 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: affordance - was Roots, traps, constructions

Dear Keith,

When communicating with you, I recollected an anecdote about Roger Barker,
the founder of Ecological Psychology (1968 book). The anecdote may not be
funny by itself, but it is interesting in the context of the recent
discussions about ways of thinking. The anecdote was told by Robert Bechtel,
prominent environmental psychologist and editor of Environment & Behavior,
at a session on Roger Barker (if memory serves) at the annual conference of
Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA).

A group of psychologists surrounded Roger Barker at a conference and told
him: "Roger, you think just like a sociologist!" Which, in psychological
parlance, meant: Roger, you are son of a bitch! This illustrates the
difference in their ways of thinking and the paradigmatic divide among
disciplines, even when they are very close social disciplines. So, we should
not be astonished that we talk different "languages" on this list.
Considering that several hundred fields are represented, with their
diversity of paradigms and schools of thought, it seems to me that we are
communicating pretty well together.

Best wishes,

Lubomir


At 10:06 PM 1/27/2008, Keith Russell wrote:
>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.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> >