Hi Ken and All,
While I too am uncomfortable at what appears to be a comment on the characteristics as well as the ideas of a fellow professional thinker, I am writing to suggest that we are perhaps missing from this discussion something fundamental in how Tim Ingold is approaching concepts of flow and why Lucretius is more relevant than might appear. Obviously, I wasn't there for the supper discussion or related talk. But I do know - from my readings of both men's work - that there is a big ontological as well as epistemological difference between Tim Ingold's phenomenological approach and the cognitive science approach that Don Norman has made such contributions to.
Because the gap is both ontological and epistemological, and one that Tim Ingold is no doubt very used to negotiating with a vision at odds with much dominant thought on the nature of people's experience, I can quite see how 'flow' would be not only disputed but possibly even not 'the same thing'. Certainly psychology is not the same thing in the two scholars' work... if indeed one can talk about psychology in relation to the anthropological contribution that Tim Ingold is making. I know that Don Norman has written on the psychology of everyday things, so I assume greater buy-in to this set of interpretations of human process on his side.
If you don't know Tim Ingold's work, I suggest it makes an interesting contrast to other work, even if you don't decide to embrace his perspective on how we dwell in this world. He has recently become very interested in design.
Best wishes,
Ann
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 3:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: "towards an ecology of materials" by Tim Ingold
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 ¡ª ¡°flow,¡± ¡ª 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¡± ¡ª ¡°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 ¡ª ¡°flow¡± and ¡°flow¡± ¡ª 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 | Éè¼Æ 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
¡ª
Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
¡ªsnip¡ª
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¡
¡ªsnip¡ª
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
