Print

---

dear lubomir,

the distinction between idealists and materialists does not mean much to me.
it has been beaten to death for the last 200 years and i don't want to be
associated with either camp.  i am interested in practices of living, not in
questions of knowledge and representation, but in what designers can or have
to do to support various practices of living.

let me leave isms behind and consider the more grounded concept of
"affordance."  it was coined to suggests that we, as a users of technology,
have our own conceptions of what we are facing and are acting accordingly.
in fact we humans can hardly act otherwise (see aristotle's principle of
non-contradiction applied to human interfaces).  for example, most computer
users do not have a clue as to what actually happens inside the hardware of
a computer.  even computer scientists have only abstract notions of how
parts of it works - yet we are able to use computers,  how come?  because we
do not insist that users know computers the way the really work (having
accurate knowledge of what they really are) but that their conceptions are
afforded when enacted - unless our interaction breaks down in heidegger's
sense.  In the case of computers, the conceptions we are encouraged to enact
are technically wrong but made to work by design of suitable interfaces.  

so, what we know of the world is either unproblematically afforded or not
afforded at all, i.e., experienced as a disrupting our conception.
affordance has nothing to do with representation, not even with abstract
notions of "knowledge", but with enacting our constructions of the world.
people who do not act on what they know are free to imagine any worlds they
please.  unless they put their knowledge into practice, it doesn't matter
what they believe and whether their knowledge bears any relation to what
exists.  enactment and affordance is the key to knowing and this bypasses
idealism or materialism

when designed for use by others, technology needs to be designed to be
afforded by available user conceptions or enable users to develop new
conception to handle it.  

it is a mark of our democratic and market driven society, that most
technologies afford many user conceptions, rarely one.  nor can we insist
that the designers' conceptions of a design needs to be shared by users.
therefore, the most important task of human-cantered designers is to design
artifacts that afford the conceptions of all those who are targeted to use
them and prevent all those who shouldn't use them from using them or getting
into trouble when they do (e.g., medicine bottles for children).

lets not get entangled in isms, debate whether computers exist (in fact we
have a name for it and someone builds them), whether accurate knowledge of
its architecture is achievable or desirable (i think it is neither), or
whether historians are cameras or creative writers of their stories.  let's
discuss concepts of design that are really important and change our
conception from how we designers worked 100 years ago to what we have to do
now. 

klaus 



 

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lubomir
S. Popov
Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 9:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Roots, traps, constructions

Dear Colleagues,

At the beginning of the discussion I mentioned that we are sailing in
philosophical waters. We talked about several interesting questions, and in
a very natural way touched some basic issues in philosophy. We spent time on
debates that are centuries old, almost as old as the alphabet and the
written word. At times the discussion on the list was waged on political
grounds. At times, we stood firmly for our positions. Even a bit more than a
sophisticated flexibility would have allowed us.

I mention this because I feel we are going nowhere. I see two definite camps
that correspond to the two major sides on the historic divide between
materialists and idealists. This is nothing new under the sun. We are going
nowhere because many e-mails repeat the same argument, without flexibility
or rethinking of the position. In some cases, we go into response to words
and phrases rather to the general premises or the general spirit of the
thesis. I personally have got exhausted. I bet that many other colleagues
feel this way.

Last April I had a friendly argument with a excellent sociologist about
idealist philosophy. I was surprised by the complexity of the argument he
presented. He was not an idealist, but evidently, he was well versed and
could get in the "shoes" of both parties. He just wanted to show me that
there is good rationale in claiming that the world is an idea. However, he
imbedded the concept of the world as an idea in historical context and
referred to a number of philosophers and philosophical systems.

Idealists make a very sophisticated argument. Even the most extreme of them
entertain very interesting approaches and complex conceptualizations. They
are very convincing. Philosophy students become schizophrenic when they
study history of philosophy and the professors dedicate a whole lecture for
each philosopher or philosophic system. Each lecture is so convincing that
after the third lecture students realize they switched sides three times and
after the next lecture, they probably would adopt and follow the system of
the next philosopher, until in lecture #5 they will change sides again. This
is because of the complexity and sophistication of the argument, the
reference to a multitude of caveats and considerations, and a multi layered
philosophical system that each one of these great philosophers has created.
By the end of the lecture students already have "converted."

Idealists are more contextual, their thinking is very exoteric, and share
more in common with the logic of humanities. Materialists are
straightforward, explicit, and easier to grasp. Of course, all this is
relative to one another and in no way I do not attribute such qualities to
the parties on the discussion list. I am only sharing remarks among students
after lectures, in the corridors and in the commons.

The thesis that the world exists only through our senses and thoughts
contributes to focusing our intellectual pursuits on the way we perceive,
conceptualize, and construe reality. After we enter into this mode of
reasoning, the basic postulate is not that important any more. Its role is
fulfilled at that stage. New postulates are developed and they guide to the
next level of concretization. This is a process of operationalization in
which after several steps, the basic premises are completely dissolved in
the myriad of new issues and problems that need to be solved. Work at
disciplinary level can be done perfectly well without ever knowing are we
materialists or idealists. Until we have to reflect and to explicate about
our fundamental principles and assumptions. This happens mostly to scholars
who work at the methodological (I mean methodology of theory, not of field
research) and theoretical levels of their disciplines.

With a hindsight, the discussion offered a number of opportunities to
explore the complexities of interrelation between matter and idea, and
between the fundamental question of philosophy and the ensuing influences on
epistemological systems. I wish more flexibility and interplay between
positions. The most interesting ideas emerge not in the process of strictly
following the line, but in the exploration of marginal territories, the
areas that change borders as they develop. 
I personally prefer these areas. And, I would  not hesitate to change
positions if I see something new with a potential.

Thank you for attention,

Lubomir