JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  April 2010

PHD-DESIGN April 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Technology first, invention second, needs last

From:

ward m eagen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ward m eagen <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 2 Apr 2010 09:54:36 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (127 lines)

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/>
>> 
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager