Hi Terry,
The thread has moved on, but to respond to your earlier points...
Our idea of what is meant by "thinking" differs, it seems. Let me rephrase
that to: "Thus abduction a vital part of constructive conceptual process of
sciences". That might give us more shared ground, perhaps. Yes, procedural
logic might be one way to operate here, but focusing only on this aspect
would ignore the value of world phenomena feedback, which serves to push the
Peircean abduction process back into the foreground. Or other logics...
My preferred reading of "thinking" is: a constructive activity that involves
a thinker responding to the challenging incursion of world phenomena on
their conceptual structures. What Deleuze called a "violence", which
decenters prior structures of conceptualisation and forces creative
readjustment by that thinker of their prior conceptual structures. Thus, a
big difference between affective responses and thinking, though they would
inter-operate and permeate each other - perhaps, we might say, as oceans do.
I'm happy to agree that alternate meanings of the word "thinking" have
worth, and alternate context may call for such. My meaning descends from a
philosophical (read conceptual-generative oriented, not truth-value
oriented) approach, where I am concerned with helping young game designers
with developing conceptually generative practices. To equate thinking with
cognitive activity *per se* would, however, seem to water the term down to
near uselessness all round, and is thus not my preferred reading.
In the end, I'm simply pointing out that abduction was posed by Peirce as
part of a model to describe scientific investigation practices (which I
suspect you appreciate for their rigour), such that the loose usage of the
term "abduction" by designers as you identify may be flawed... I agree,
hence my initial post, and thus I am actually supporting you this time
around!
Didn't know Bastick btw, thanks - looks interesting for grounding affective
responses as per your paper on Computerising Affective Design Cognition -
interesting paper btw. I am interested in futher work in this field from a
design process perspective, if you have some pointers...
Cheers,
Adam
--
Adam Parker
Senior Lecturer, Games Design
Qantm College
Qantm College Melbourne Campus
235 Normanby Rd
South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia
+61 (0) 3 8632 3400 | Phone
+61 (0) 3 8632 3401 | Fax
www.sae.edu | Web
www.qantm.com.au | Web
www.saeshortcourses.com | Web
SAE National Provider Code: 0273. SAE CRICOS Provider Codes: NSW 00312F. SAE
Institute Pty Ltd, ABN: 21 093 057 973
This email (including all attachments) is confidential and may be subject to
legal privilege and/or copyright. The information contained within this
email (including all attachments) should only be viewed if you are the
intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete this email from your system along with any
copies that have been made. Any unauthorised use, which includes saving,
printing, copying, disseminating or forwarding is prohibited and may result
in breach of confidentiality, privilege or copyright. If you wish to
unsubscribe or choose not to receive further commercial electronic messages
from SAE Institute or any grouped/associated entities please send an email
this address with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
|