 |
 |
Dear Erik I believe that you are correct in suggesting that Flippo's model provides lovely diagrams for Latour 's ACT and would suggest that at root, they both have in common the Deleuzian notion of immanence. Virtual events manifest as actualized events which have virtual consequences which manifest... There are many consequences of this cycle (causation, choice, creating, etc.) but what interests me from the perspective of this conversation is the tendency to view this dynamic from either frame such that the view sees the other as ground. Just as in the visual play of being able to see the old woman OR the young woman, the pair kissing OR the wineglass - but NEVER BOTH at the same time - we seem determined to choose one as the primary view. The problems then pile up as we attempt to integrate pieces of the other frame into our frame, questions like 'is light a particle or a wave' result which are just poorly framed problems. The gestalt is both: our framing is only the model. Contradictions are created from poorly framed questions. If viewed from a process perspective we can talk about trajectories and the resolutions of forces, if viewed from an object perspective, we can talk about artifact, inventions, etc. It seems impossible to talk about artifacts and forces in the same model without running into contradictions - this would be the same mind/body dilemma that Descartes ran into when he threw spirit into the works... Please pardon me - to those who have not read Filippo's very interesting blog but I have quoted a number of his points below- they can be seen in context at http://filsalustri.wordpress.com/. And please pardon me Filippo if I seem unconvinced as I applaud your work at the same time as I reflect on it... > Does need drive invention? Or is invention really a mother? > Interesting tag but as Venturi responded in his Gentle Manifesto, not either/or but both/and. Solving the problem by resolving the dilemma needs give way to restating the problem to where there is no conflict. Then, necessarily the solution unfolds from the properly stated question. Of course your solution that invention creates needs and needs create invention is viable. > The first point is that the need must be recognized by individuals who have the ability and resources to take action. > Consistency requires that 'recognized' be understood as a force, i.e, 'expressed by individuals' works. Whether someone 'recognizes' is ultimately unknowable. > The second point is that the nature of the newly perceived need depends on the nature of the introduced technology. > Sometimes its needs but mostly it is 'possibilities' - when the president of Sony introduced the Watchman technology, he was asked. 'Why?'. His response was, "Because we can." Design is about resolving needs but I like to believe design is best in dealing with aspirations. > The third point is that a change in any of the forces will cause a perceived need to arise. > Choice always underlies the trajectory of the resolution of these vectors or designing would be fundamentally impossible. > The fourth point is that the perceived need accounts for only the difference between what is and what could be. > Ah the root of the matter, always the difference between what is and what could be... What I would like to add is the difference between what is and what should be... food for thought Ward M. Eagen On 2010-04-02, at 4:43 AM, Erik Stolterman wrote: Dear Filippo and Don, Thanks to both of you for interesting ideas and arguments. Overall I find both of you to be right in your analysis and I only have a couple of comments. Instead of contrasting the two concepts of needs and technology, I would like to make the picture a bit richer. When I think about the complexity of development or progress, I like to include the following concepts as different aspects and factors: discovery, invention, innovation, and design. These are quite well defined concepts and all relate in different ways to the issues of need and technology. Any new design is, as Filippo nicely shows, a complex network of forces, and all have some aspect of each discovery, invention, innovation and design. There are probably even more potential aspects to consider, but my point is that reducing it to a question between need versus technolgy kind of makes the issue a bit too simple and I think thereby also misses the most important point, which to me is the recognition of the overwhelming complexity of progress and its anatomy. The other point I want to make is that what Filippo suggest as a model is to me a version of what Latour suggests. There are never any simple cause-effect relationships in reality, there are only complex networks with alignments and alliances. Of course, Latour does not really give any advice on how to handle or strategize when it comes to such complex realities, but what his philosophy shows is that if we, in an effort to understand reality (and progress), creates to simplistic models we will not make "progess". What designers are good at (when they do good) is to be able to handle the complexity, to understand new discoveries, new inventions and innovations and in close understanding of the human condition design new possible realities. There is no starting point in either needs or technology, there is only the challenge of making sense of existing conditions and potentials.... Enough rambling on a "långfredag" (long friday) which is the Swedish name of this day.... Erik On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:39 PM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hurrah! Filippo's analysis is wonderful. here is the comment i entered on > his blog page: > > Very nice analysis. Precisely what I was hoping might result: informed > discussion and debate, perhaps new formulations. Alas, most of the debate > has been uninformed. Thank you, Filippo. This is the best analysis I have > seen. I couldn't have said it better myself. In fact, I obviously didn't. > Don Norman > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Filippo A. Salustri <[log in to unmask] >> wrote: > >> It's taken a long time, but I've finally put down some thoughts on the >> whole >> technology & need thing. >> Those still interested can read them at >> > http://filsalustri.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/balancing-need-and-technology/ >> Cheers. >> Fil >> >> On 18 December 2009 03:57, Rosan Chow <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Charles Burnette wrote on 08.12.2009 >>> >>> "Don Norman seems on our minds these days. Those committing or >>> committed to design research should read his latest contribution to >>> the discusssion:" >>> >>> http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/technology_first_needs_last.html >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> -- >> Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng. >> Mechanical and Industrial Engineering >> Ryerson University >> 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON >> M5B 2K3, Canada >> Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749 >> Fax: 416/979-5265 >> Email: [log in to unmask] >> http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/ <http://deseng.ryerson.ca/%7Efil/> >> >