« Island Machine | Main | Proto TripleO »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Michael X

fantastic post. I wonder though, isn't design in general always already an ontic activity? That is to say, building is dwelling is being as becoming. Every act of being brings forth more of the world. Here, too, I'm thinking about how according to Maturana & Varela "every act of knowing brings forth a world"(1992:26). This is also why I think ontography (as act and activity) must be placed before ontology (as theory and abstraction). What you outline here suggests to me particular ventures within the wider field of ontological praxis...



Cheers Michael,
To be honest, I’m permanently confused by the terms ‘ontic’ and ‘ontology’, I’m still trying to work them out and how they operate in philosophy— let alone how they transpose to design. I think you’re right though, the majority of design could be categorized as ontic. This is why I like Tony Fry’s angle (a Heideggerian) when he talks about bringing about “a change in the being of the practitioner” (an ontological concern?). Design that designs— interventions that are intended to operate on who we are and alter how we practice; a movement away from primary ontic concerns. However, this is when I get confused again, as they all collapse into each other !-).
Very quickly, I love M&V’s notion of bringing forth worlds or terraforming but is it too linear or reductive? Again, I probably haven’t read enough to qualify this, but how does that world or network feedback on the organism or pattern that has generated it? Thus altering or sustaining it’s structure. It’s not messy enough for me. It is a praxis thing, theory adjusting practice and practice adjusting theory… … Which is a territory I’m trying to explore. The ‘letters are things’ projects is a case in point
Finally, ‘ontography’ is an interesting term. Are you using it in the playful Graham Harman sense?
Cheers for now, HG

The comments to this entry are closed.