Dear Ken,
The kitchen problem gets us back to the Bob the Builder problem. A three year old child will recognise a spoon as a member of the category of things, implicily, by picking it up and using it as a thing. Whether they could provide a list of things that might be called things would depend on the stage of development they were at. Maybe Einstein, at three, would see making breakfast as a system/process and maybe he would add it to a list of things that are not things but yet are things in an abstract way. Hence, being such a conceputal genius, when he grew up, he could see a system/process in operation, in the known facts, that no-one else saw and he also saw the implication that there must be thngs involved called atoms.
By reversing our order of philosophers, thus starting with Bob, we go from a simple object at hand as tool, through Heiddeger's intense questioning of such innocent things, till we arrive at Heraclitus where everything is flow.
Now our frolick has become circular
cheers
keith
>>>>>>>>
Ken wrote:
I agree with your point on kitchens. There is some kind of ambiguous quality that makes it difficult to decide which parts of the kitchen are things, and which parts are a system or a process. My wife and I have been through two major kitchen renovations. One was in a house from 1895. The other was in a modern townhouse. All the physical things in each kitchen were the same before the renovation and after. Despite this fact, the way we reorganized the kitchen enabled us to use the things in new and more effective ways. As with updated versions of the iPhone operating system or new versions of computer software, the algorithm makes a big difference to how the thing works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|