Many thanks to both Ken & Keith for some meaty observations. Keith's recommendation of the Gendlin article is welcome -- it was not on my radar, and I've ordered the book. Will have to wait for Gilchrist.
Heidegger's "Thing" is, of course, an important reading for the meaning of things; and the meaning of things is central to the meaning of the kitchen.
However, in keeping with my emphasis on domestic work, I think Keith's interpretation of Heidegger's housemaids could use a second look. Heidegger quotes Plato's description of the maids, in which they laugh at the philosopher, not for his lofty ambitions, but because "the things in front of his very nose and feet were unseen by him." However, Heidegger does not appear to hear that injunction, as he proceeds to assume that the meaning of the anecdote is that the maids are foolishly discounting the fundamental role of philosophy in understanding reality. I would interpret the same passage as revealing that, while Heidegger was busy writing his essay, other people were cooking his meals. For this reason, he is able to ignore the messier aspects of things in the kitchen, which include, not just the solid objects he exclusively mentions, but also gasses and liquids, not to mention electromagnetic energy like heat, electricity, and radio waves. Heat in the kitchen is a "thing." In those terms, so is the World Wide Web, since while it appeals to us for immaterial reasons, its existence is obdurately physical.
I think that to understand the kitchen it is necessary also to include money, food packaging, and recipes, whether written or held in memory from Grandma. These semi-tangible items form an important part of the inventory. Ken states the obvious in concluding that a system for organizing bank tellers is "not a thing," but in the kitchen such a distinction is not pragmatically useful. There seems to be no clear cut-off in which systems go on one side and things on the other (NOTE: suggestions welcome here!) There is also the disciplinary conclusion that the purview of design includes both systems and objects, and often both at once.
And here, regretfully, I am going to have to depart this debate, just as it becomes joyously frolicsome. I'm on sick leave this summer, which is why I've had time to write list messages. But a batch of medical procedures is just about to descend, which is going to keep me busy for the next little while. I shall continue to admire from afar.
Thanks again for the ideas!!
XXXHeidi
P.S. To supplement Seinfeld, see George Carlin on "stuff"...
From: Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2018 4:41 AM
Subject: Re: On the Topic of Topics
Dear Ken,
yes, indeed, you are correct. In the three hour seminar we would ceratinly cover these aspects of non-thing things.
As Seinfeld might say: "There's the thing."
cheers
keith
________________________________
<[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: On the Topic of Topics
Dear Keith,
While your note on topics clarifies some issues, it muddies Herbert Simon’s concept of design. You write, “We even find Herbert Simon’s model of making things better through acting on things in the world - that is, design as fixing.”
While Simon’s model *includes* acting on things and fixing things, it is not *limited* to acting on things and fixing things.
--------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
