Dear Ken,
But Prof. Ingold was asserting difference, thus the Flow2 and did not seem
to be alluding with Csikszentmihalyi according to Don, who claimed he
wasn't recognizing Csikszentmihalyi's contribution. That said, while I
pushed back to Lucretius, it isn't the only only place in the history of
ideas where a construction of flow can be found. I chose that one
specifically to push back on the question of whose ideas Ingold is using. I
was not at the meeting, but I do think that if someone says, as Don
indicated, that they are not using someone's ideas, then we must assume
they are not, even if those ideas are remarkably similar. Also, as other's
have suggested, it might also be that Prof. Ingold accepts different
axiomatic and axiological principles so his reading of Csikszentmihalyi
would not be the same as most on the list.
-j
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Ken Friedman <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Jeremy,
>
> Yikes! I posted to the list before snoozing off in my hotel in response to
> Fiona. Woke up this morning to find that Don had also responded, and that
> Fiona walked out of the room and slammed the door. And so on. I’ll probably
> post later when I have given this some thought.
>
> I am writing only to address the issue of “flow.”
>
> It was clear from the prior post that Tim Ingold was discussing and
> disagreeing with Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of “flow” as a psychological
> state. This is a widely known and well understood technical definition.
> Whoever may be right or wrong in the debate, Tim Ingold and Don Norman were
> arguing about the same thing. That is, they were taking different positions
> to disagree about the same thing.
>
> When you bring in Lucretius’s concept of “flow,” you are talking about
> something else entirely. Even though it bears the same word — “flow,” —
> Lucretius describes flow in a different way for a different purpose.
> Lucretius is an Epicurean poet and philosopher. He is describing nature and
> the universe as a whole in his poem, On the Nature of Things (De Rerum
> Natura). The famous fragment is, “No single thing abides, but all things
> flow.”
>
> This is a Roman restatement of the earlier Greek philosopher Heraclitus’s
> statement: “panta rhei” — “all things flow.”
>
> I could just as well write, “No! That can’t be right! Bernoulli is
> definitive.”
>
> I’d be right if I were describing [1] fluid mechanics for engineering
> rather than [2] flow as a universal principle (Lucretius, Heraclitus) or
> [3] flow as a psychological state (Csikszentmihalyi). The debate between
> Ingold and Norman involved [3] flow as a psychological state
> (Csikszentmihalyi). Your comment involved [2] flow as a universal principle
> (Lucretius, Heraclitus).
>
> Any serious debate requires us to debate the same issue using relatively
> common terms. Ingold and Norman debated Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow.
> It is a mistake to argue that the applicable definition of this term comes
> from Lucretius, a Roman poet of the 1st century BC. Lucretius used a Latin
> word that we now translate using the same English word that
> Csikszentmihalyi uses. Even though these words seem to be the same — “flow”
> and “flow” — they do not described the same thing.
>
> I can imagine this as a comedy routine. It opens this way:
>
> Three guys in a bar argue with each other.
>
> One yells, “Psychology!” The next replies, “Philosophy!” And the third
> yells, “Physics!”
>
> “You guys are wrong,” yells the first. “I’m talking about the psychology
> of expert practice here.”
>
> “Don’t be an idiot,” shouts the second, “I’m describing the essence of
> life and the way of all things in the universe!”
>
> “You’re both jerks!” screams the third. “I’m talking about continuum
> mechanics and the core principles of fluid dynamics.”
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The
> Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
> Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
> Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne
> University of Technology
>
> —
>
> Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
>
> —snip—
>
> Critiquing the ideas is where we should be, but honestly the concept of
> flow has quite a plural history and to have one being the preferred for all
> cases is a bit worrisome, especially when it is clear that the author isn’t
> even using that definition. If you did that to me, claim that
> Csikszentmihalyi is definitive of flow, i'd outright dismiss you because I
> think Lucretius is definitive of flow and haven't heard of Csikszentmihalyi
> at all, though i can google like anyone else. Do i think any speaker needed
> to think that Csikszentmihalyi has any place in his work, nope…
>
> —snip—
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|