Are we human?

Are we human?

Student Name: Maartje Damen

Student ID: 4716736

Student email: M.H.Damen@student.tudelft.nl

Date of Submission: 19-4-2024

Organism

Flow as the carrier of energy

‘Life is the attempt to temporarily resist the homogeneity.’

The term flow can be interpreted in many different ways, of which Newton’s second law of motion can be considered the most reductionist one. Flows can be described as a carrier of energy, consisting out of mass and out of a direction, or directionality. The first of all flows can be considered the Big Bang: This would be the singular flow. With the initialisation of this flow, energy broke free in a multidirectional but linearistic manner. This flow would be the basis of all diversion.

Interacting flows

This flow has only started to hold significance from the point of interaction with another flow. In this evolution of things, maybe the beginning of life could be described as the moment this this singular flow has gotten disrupted. Somewhere, this linearistic energy had a chance to escape and meet the now not singular flow: On the constructive interference with the waves, more events got the chance to take place and with each crossing, new impact was being made.

Although the concept of life is almost impossible to get a grip on and there is definitely no uniform understanding in humankind, this accumulative interference of flows might help understand the seemingly infinite complexity of the matter. Where flows interact, an event takes place. This event can be described as the expression of relationality between the flows. Life has evolved from this infinity of flows. The complexity within one cell, one organism, one human, is far beyond everything linear. This complexity allows for organisms to have certain degree of freedom in managing the flows that they interact with. The size of significance of a flow to the other will determine affect: this accumulated quality would be the emergent quality of the event.

Accumulation of flows: life

Maybe one could try to describe intelligence in forms of life based on these flows. The affects of the events are what is temporarily trying to resist the homogeneity. The bigger and the stronger the flow is that an organism can manage, the more impact on the homogeneity one can make and thus the more power one carries.

Managing flows: tools (reductionist)

How does an event take place? To generate relationality between the flows and thus create events, interaction must take place. Communicating is an attempt to translate ones thoughts and senses to the other. The organism is fully reliant on senses. A human needs at least a selection of smell, touch, vision, sound and speech to understand. To communicate with the other, both the one and the other are fully reliant on these senses, and a shared understanding of these senses will improve the chances of successful communication. This mutual understanding is a system that constructs our understanding of the world, and is known as discourse. Thus, discourse can be considered a window into collectivising and growing flows, and so as a window into power.

Discourse

Means of communication can all be considered a tool to transport information from the one to the other. We communicate within the limitations of our bodily functions: our senses and our memory.

The memory is fully reliant on the senses, and on the context of the individual. From the moment the individual receives sensory input, the brain gets programmed with the neural networks based on the unique sensory inputs it has received. As for language, the language that you are brought up with will be the way of communicating that you are capable of; with its limitations and enrichments, it will be the foundation of how you navigate your understanding of the world. The network that you are brought up in, will allow you to make understanding of the things around you based on the experiences that you connected with the words that are available for you. The better the memory of these words and the more broad the information that is available to you, the more extensive you can attach nuances of understanding to the senses. In the society that we live in, this degree of understanding of the senses is strongly connected to a degree of intelligence, and is highly sought after. Everything we do is to increase this knowledge of understanding of the senses.

Exosomatisation

To reach an even greater degree of understanding, the human has learned to exosomatise. We found a way to increase our memory, by combining the methods of information transmittance. The moment we learned a way of keeping the verbal transmittance of knowledge to spatial transmittance of knowledge, we allowed ourselves to share information with the selves and the other of the past and the future. The network of knowledges could grow. We invented cooking, by which cooking shaped our stomachs. We invented knives, by which knives caused an adaptation of our teeth. We designed clothing, and clothing impacted the growth of hair. We discovered writing, and writing affected our capabilities to memorize. We are exteriorizing to increase the understanding of our senses, and the tools we exteriorise decrease the quality of those senses, as we do not need them anymore. We try to translate our thoughts and feelings into these tools, these artifacts, and they on their turn potentially affect the organism.

There are two steps to this story of exosomatisation. For one, there is the practicality of this evolution. We use the tools that we generate to reach a greater degree of understanding of our senses, to connect with the other, to design a system of discourse and thus to affect. The tool is used as a technology. The second is the effect that this system, this tool has on the organism. the exosomatisation causes an evolution past practicality: the things we cook are sought to be flavourful, tasty: the cutlery we use has to be delicate and ornamented; the clothing we wear represent our taste in fashion: What is this evolution? Is this what we consider expression, culture: art?

This is where exosomatisation becomes fun: it is not just a practicality, but it enriches us with more than just the addition of the elements. We can see the methods of tools as a scale from the technology to the art.

This also where the risks start. With art individual expression is introduced, but so is categorisation and thus exclusion.

Using the tools for art & collectivising (holist)

Intelligence is not just limited to a single organism: Further developed forms of life often rely on collectivity. The better known the self and the other are with the common understanding, the discourse, the more feelings we can associate with the words and the stronger the mutual understanding.

With a sense of collectivity, we can share the capacity of a flow. Although discourse is not solely reliant on language, the role of language in it is fundamental for humans. We cannot communicate without classification, association, grouping, chunking. Language tends to chop information up into small entities, it tries and labels everything from the actual to the real by classifying groups based on similarities. On the other hand, words are never going to be a constant. For every individual, other associations are made with a certain word, based upon experience that fuels the understanding of that word. We can call this indeterminacy: within the language you will always end up in a circle of definitions, because of the limitations of words and the finite nature of the language as a tool.

The human has only been human from the moment we introduce the term human. There is never going to be one thing that we can point out as making human human, as for each individual this term has a different meaning. But, what we can consider is how the use of this term affects the collectivity that we are seeking. With verbs like ‘dehumanisation’ (in)humane treatment, or the broader ‘humanity’, we seem to be seeking a position of ‘us’ against something that is not ‘us’. This is for example one of the main twisting points in discussions regarding abortion: When is something human enough to be treated with the framework of rules and regulations that we designed for humans? We are trying to add a measurable line onto a fluidity by defining this boundary. Defining categories within the fluidity of life is challenging if not impossible, and it is much less relevant than defining the affect of the event.

Growing flows (emergence)

Intelligence is the capacity to differentiate between what is important (the singular) and what is not (the ordinary). Just as described in the description of human, the singular is not something that is locked on a single parameter. Although the boiling point of water is widely considered a given, it turns out it is not consistent under different conditions of pressure: When bringing an electric kettle into the mountain, you will find out soon enough that the threshold of turning off is never going to be met on this different height: The event did not happen. These events are an expression of relationality: if you enter a classroom after a long walk and you encounter both a chair and a bottle of water, the chair is the singular: your attention goes to the chair as it is what is most relevant to you at that moment. Put the same three elements (you, chair, bottle of water) in the context of a desert, and the singular has completely changed. All of a sudden, the chair becomes the ordinary and the bottle the Singular. In the example of the kettle, there is a relationship between the cooking point of water and the air pressure.

Complete generalisation doesn’t explain anything, but categorisation is extremely dangerous (we vs they: racism, hierarchy). To communicate, we need this categorisation, this chunking, but with this we limit ourselves with the feelings, we lose knowledge. We need to master our reductionist properties by associating them with feelings, senses, to have a basis for intelligence. What makes us human, is the application of Art and Technology to interact with the other.

Plus

In this thought piece, we are going to dive deeper in the nature of emergence: the generation of something bigger than what was. In the previous thought piece, this emergence is found in the affect of an event. In this thought piece, the meaning of a flow is being re-interpreted from a more psychological perspective; we use the flow model of Csikszentmihalyi to try and understand how humans behave in the flow and what emergence this can generate.

Flow as the present

As a person, being in the flow is a term that we are all quite known with. It is something that you might not experience too often, but when you do the flow makes you able to lose your ego and detach yourself from all of your problems. If you are fully invested in the topic that you are diving into, you suddenly are able to forget about the laundry at home, the fight you had with your sibling or about the hunger or urge to go to the toilet. You can be detached from your bodily issues and you just become this creating/creative force who is making things, being in the zone. Within this state, all you do is pre-reflective. Once you become aware and reflect on the state you are in, you are leaving it. This zone could be the total absorption in the present. Within this way of thinking, one could argue that this would be the peak of happiness. This zone is supposedly only reached when you are doing something that challenges you: it is something that is difficult to you and maybe also to others, whilst at the same time it touches something you are good at and maybe even passionate about. This place where high skill level and high challenge level collide, will bring you a lot of fulfilment.

Skill; mastering the tools

To get into this state, we need to be able to carry a certain amount of skill level. To reach this, we need to master our reductionist properties, the tools that we have within the discourse, by associating them with the feelings, senses. This basis of knowledge could be considered the skill that we have. We cannot form this skill without our environment: without the external stimuli to the senses there are no tools, there is no skill: the self is meaningless.

Challenge: the capacity of the now

If skill can be described as the backbone of the individual, the sum of all things that the individual has taken along in its life, challenge can be found in the now: the capacity of the self to take space in the moment, to be present and to bring energy. The comparison with the description of flows in the first thought piece can be made easily: Where the skill could be considered the carrier of the flow, the challenge can be considered the energy of that flow. We can compare these two elements with the double centre of gravity that Émile Durkheim defines our inner life: Our individuality and everything in us that expresses something other than ourselves.

Fluidity of human

The individual, with its senses, is meaningless if it weren’t for the environment it interacts with. It is impossible to see the individual loose from its context.

The flow state, however, can be obtained not only in the coherence of others but is something that an infividual can reach. However, if someone stays in the flow for too long and it ignores its bodily senses, its friends and family or any other external thoughts, this individual will slowly veer into madness. We need our environment to keep reflecting on the senses, to reflect on the tools and the technologies that we are leaning on for this flow. With this sense of collectivity, we can share the capacity of a flow.

Collectivising human

In many occasions, who is considered ‘we’ is assumed to be a general understanding between the deliverer of information and the receiver. An author of a column will generalise their public based on what they are customed to as their audience. This is based on experience and a bit of intuition, and the assumption of ‘we’ is almost always insufficient. Using the term ‘we’ is almost always evaded in academic language due to the trickiness of its nature. Both the term self and the term ‘we’ pose a barrier between the one and the other: It helps us classify the subject and the object.

There is both a risk and a beauty in this collectivising of the individuals. It challenges you to dwell upon the question: what is this collective that I consider myself a part of? what is the fluidity of this collective, how defined are the boundaries and if so, are they carrying any meaning? The feeling of belonging, of having a strong mutual understanding within this collectivity, allows you to get an understanding of your senses, but if this collectivity is completely in line with the self, one could say that there is no ‘we’ anymore.

The self is the expression of all experience that has been collected. The ‘we’ can only exist by the means of these tools, and thus the ‘we’ could be considered the ultimate understanding of the tools.

The self is hardly ever to be understood without its context. The five steps between the I and the ‘we’:

The human flows

To reach the flow state, the human needs challenge and skill. This paragraph dives deeper into the scale from challenge to skill, by making use of the tools: the scale from Art to Technology.

Technology could be considered the most reductionist way of approaching the use of the tools. The opposite of this reductionism would be holism. Just like art, this opposite is fundamentally unable to be covered with the use of tools, as this would be the complete state of letting be: this would be the closest one could get to the self. The ultimate form of art is thus by definition unable to be expressed and communicated, but due to the technological nature of the human we are constantly seeking to find tools to express this self.

Homo Ludens

The closest to the I, and thus the art, is the homo ludens: playing human. With the body as the tool, the playing human is fully living the moment: the homo ludens allows themselves to emerge in the unexpected, let the associations take lead, and leave worry or iteration of thought out of the mind. Play is where the distance between stimulus and response is maximized, and where input and output are as far from each other as the organism allows for. The homo ludens relies fully on the challenge it poses to itself in the event of play. Using play as our means of communication might be the tool that allows the other to get the closest to the organism as possible.

Homo Faber

Connecting the self and the environment, is the homo faber: the making human. The making human is reliant on the individual, but is nothing without the other: it relies on both the skill of the tool and the challenge that the self brings to the event to create.

Homo Sociologicus

The social human is a human that fully adheres to the tools, the rules, the regulations that his environment have laid upon him. For this human, the tools are in full alignment with the senses of the self and of the other, and thus there is no discrepancy between the self and the other. The concept of homo sociologicus challenges the availability of free will: is there anything left of the individual if all there is follows directly from its context? The social human relies on the level of skill that it has accumulated within its lifetime.

Emergence

With exosomatisation of the tools, we are on a road to unlearning the play. With the tools, we rely on the past to support the now. These perspectives of human show the relevance of the relationship between the self and the ‘we’. Without the self, there is no creation, but without the ‘we’, there is no expression, and emergence cannot take place.

Get a tool that lies as close to the senses as possible: share with taste: share with voice: music, share with touch: sex, share with vision: movement (share with smell????)

As humans, we should aim for a challenge that matches our skill level. If we manage to create on a high skill level, we allow emergence to take place: this generates a feeling of satisfaction that could maybe be the source of happiness.

Environment

Within the field of architecture, we are constantly confronted with the challenge to find unification in the two extremes: the big and the small, the organism and the environment; the knowledge and the art. As architects and designers of the world around us, we have received a certain degree of power to affect. We get the chance to be the translators of the past, to manipulate the environment and thus shape the experience of the humans that are subject to this environment. With this power, we should critically evaluate which set of constraints we value and implement above others.

Concluded from the thought pieces above, as humans we should strive to use our collectivity to challenge the self.

In the right scale of collectivity, individuals have the capacity to share their senses with communicative tools that are mostly understood by those around them, and just where the communicative tools form a limit to this mutual understanding, the individuals are challenged to find a solution.

Wicked problems

Right at this edge of capacity is where new things emerge. Within design and architecture, the whole complexity of the problem allows for a reduction to an infinite number of individual problems. Although this could be said for all forms of problem solving, the academic world is usually under the belief that the more deconstructed a problem is being tackled, the more true the result can be. Although this is the aim for fundamental sciences and the backbone for applied sciences, designers cannot scale down infinitely: We need to consider the problems that are facing of a level of complexity that makes it unfeasible to manage with reductionism alone.

In the field of design thinking, Dorst and Cross (2001) introduced the term ‘creative leap’. This creative leap is defined as the event at which a designer suddenly feels understanding of the design problem, and a concept solution emerges. To take this creative leap, Dorst and Cross argue that the more in-depth a designer goes to defining and understanding the problem and the more a designer makes use of its frame of reference for proposing concept structures, the stronger the creative solution. These two aspects are described as the building of a bridge. The creative leap leans upon the two sides of the bridges: The collective (knowledge) and the individual (art). Creativity can close this gap between the knowledge and the I, resulting in a satisfactory design proposal.

Building the knowledge

The knowledge that the designer brings to a design will always be the backbone of what will emerge. Without this information, the designer cannot create. To find this information about the problem, the designer has to increase its knowledge by trying to hold on to a single moment, To create a sense of staticity within the flow. By breaking down the flows to individual moments and trying to find staticity in these flows, a derivative of the mass of the flow is extracted. Although these static moments are unable to say anything actual about the problem we need the chunks to communicate stuff. We need to use the generic for the genetic to make sense of the world. The problem is the infinity of elements that can be generated this way. The difference between what is important ant what is not, is not locked in a single parameter but it is the task of the designer to make sense of what is important and what is not, to distinguish between the singular and the ordinary.

This aligns fully with earlier concepts discussed in these papers: To reach a certain amount of creativity, the understanding of the problem is fundamental. We need the reductionist knowledges to perform steps towards meaningful solutions.

For this, we need to dare to collectivise: Be the Homo Sociologicus. By sharing the knowledges, we can grow the collective skill level. This enlarges the flow that we can manage, and thus the strength of the design that we will propose.

Building the self

The self is locked in the moment, in the event. We have to find a way to express the self without sacrificing the art. We have to ask ourselves: How vague can we let our expression be before it becomes madness? Expression can be related to this event, based on the intensity on the pressure. Is there a way how we can increase the pressure, can we find a way to grow this self, can we share the self without sacrifice of the art? The feeling that people have if they are fully emersed in the act of being: something that closely touches this feeling is to be the body: to dance, to shape, to convert. The feeling that people share with performing arts, but also within the nightlife. A sentence that comes from the dancefloor:

‘We are the substance’

We need to dare to play: be the Homo Ludens. By being fully immersed in the moment, by allowing ourselves to drift free without expectations or limits, we can embrace the immediacy of experience, let our intuition flow and be the creation.

Togetherness: by being each others tool, we can get as closely to the communication, without sacrificing the self:

Being the substance on the dancefloor, going to a theatre that is oriented so that we can all see the reactions of the other visitors (example roman theaters)

We are the substance: express yourself by the other & be expressed: bodily performance as the closest thing that the self gets in togetherness with the ‘we’

This togetherness is creating based on the movement of the body; using the body as the tool

Being in good physical state is the gift you can give to your environment and to the self

• Dance & dj’s > emergence
• Performance & producer
• Athlete & coach

What is up with watching others perform/ on the edge of their capability? Being in the flow?

The creative leap (emergence)

Although there is a middle way between these two extremes, the significance of embracing just the most extreme of things will lead to the greatest flow: the biggest leap and maybe the strongest design solution. This is where we will find emergence in architecture and design. We need to be performing right at the edge of capacity, and not be scared to include the other in the art and the knowledge.

Problems & solutions: design

Design is an oxymoron: we design for the union of the opposites.

We do not have to rely on the invidual, the tools have evolved and we are responsible to make use of this collective knowledge in a respectful manner. We have to make use of the skill that each individual brings to the collectivity, because as architects we hold the tools: we have the skill and we are given the power to bring together this human diversity. The architect is not the reductionist, nor is the architect the artist: the architect is the maker.

Conclusion

The human is reliant to the connection with the other to keep making sense.

Without development of the tools, of the reductionist properties of the senses, the senses mean nothing and the individual is meaningless. If you dare to excel in formulating your senses in a tool, you allow yourself to dive into the depth of knowledge that is needed to reach the flow state.

If you manage to reach this depth in togetherness with your environment, you can be each other’s tools: being a subject-object pair allows both you and your environment to expand and deepen the association of thoughts and feels with the discourse that you are in.

Both for the individual as for the totality, it is needed to find the balance between skill level and challenge level: In this balance emergence takes place.

Future thoughts

Next questions to dive into:

Why is there diversity, rather than sameness?

What is up with hierarchy?

What is beauty?

What is up with watching others perform/ on the edge of their capability?

Junk

The self - (the god?) – the world

Organism – plus – environment

Big (all encompassing) – small (chunks)

Why do we, humans, want to be part of something that is bigger than solely the self?

With architectural design, we have a tool that affects the human: with this tool we are capable to shape human behaviour: we produce the tools that make the human. With designing, we affect the direction of evolution. Not only should we strive to find emergence in the design process, we should aim to design for stimulating individuals to .

Who are we to decide what kind of human we want to evolve to? By designing, we determine the direction of evolution > are we god?

If tools make humans, how can we shape humans to be ‘this kind of human’ with the tools we have? (architecture)

Relationalism: things are neither self-standing entities nor vague events but relational particulars. relational particulars are the ultimate constituents of reality.

Language for chunking, language for collectivising

Collectivising vs chunking > think, are these antagonists or are these the same?

Paranoia: the explanation of everything based on one flow (‘if my parents didn’t hit me as a child…’)

Schizophrenia: the explanation of everything based on the connection of everything

Affordance: An affordance is, in essence, an action possibility in the relation between user and an object. A door affords opening if you can reach the handle. For a toddler, the door does not afford opening if she cannot reach the handle.

You are part of a system. What is a system?

• Something that ‘we’ maintain.
• Everyone is being part of this system in a different way
• Variation in influence, responsibility?
• How can you be part of the changing of a system, made by humans?
• What is the changeability of the system?

The human is reliant to the connection with the other to keep making sense

Why is there diversity, rather than sameness?

https://www.bedrock.nl/filosofie-schoonheid-volgens-plato/

If tools make humans, how can we shape humans to be ‘this kind of human’ with the tools we have? (architecture)

You need to dare to lose, to be able to elevate > emergence. Lose time, take risk, lose control: new things will emerge.

Dare is to lose balance: not dare is to lose oneself.

We are human because we create.

Surround yourself with humans who create their lives, more than they complain. Create, more than they consume. Live actively, instead of accepting life as is. Find people chasing down their potential. Sprint together.

Omring jezelf met mensen die hun leven creëren, in plaats van aanschouwen. Creëren, in plaats van consumeren.

Leef actief, wordt niet geleefd. Vind mensen die hun potentieel najagen. Samen sprinten.

Schopenhauers porcupine dilemma

The hedgehog dilemma: humans, by nature, desire closeness to one another, but by getting close we open the opportunity to hurt one another. Is inspired by a bunch of hedgehogs in winter.

Do I want to stay warm, or do I want to stay safe? Do I want to be protected, or to protect myself? Do I want to protect my hart, or to enrich yourself?

Think: memory, imagination, future thinking. The past to the future, how does it relate to the now?

Teleurstelling volgt door verwachting

Humans have found varieties of methods to generate a feeling of togetherness.

Sports as an example of reductionism: putting every entity in a category, ranking, numbering.

• DATA!
• How does intuition come into play in sports, now that sports have developed into a knowledge based science, with the tightest training schedules, race plans and protocols, where can the individual put their soul in the game?
• The practice of sports is what gives so many people motivation
• The drive to win
• The drive to be part of a group, competing against another group
• The magic of sport: how people elevate above themselves and what they believe are capable of: usually only lasts when the data-component has not taken over

Today, I cried. I cried because of watching a rowing game, where I saw crews change in their energy during the race: From determination, focus, calmth; passing consistency, pain, hope; changing to a togetherness, rhythm and belief; finishing in euphoria, pride and exhaustion. I cried because I knew most people racing this race believed, had felt utter motivation in their preparation, and yet the crew that we all saw crossing the finish line first, their success had little to do with the data-driven preparations. After three quarters, a belief started to show up in their eyes. The shared rhythm clicked better than ever. It looked almost like the energy they generated, was bigger than the energy they put into it.

The feeling that I saw on this race, is something that I have missed in my rowing career for the last few years. Once I started to stand out, the optimalisation of training schedules, eating patterns and broader life choices all started to become based on the knowledge on how to become the best. This has helped me a lot further in my rowing level, but it has been years since I felt that feeling. The feeling of belonging, the magic of generating something bigger than the sum of parts.

Is this where we stumble upon that threshold, between the big and the small?

How does sport relate to art in regards to reductionism?

• Interesting: how dance is considered an artform, and people collectively come and watch dance as an art performance (reference collectivism, how theaters have been designed based on feeling of collectivity) and how watching dance performances alone on tv has a whole lot less meaning. If needed, people join each other to go and watch performances on TV together, to still get that feeling of togetherness.
• Figure skating as an art performance, but the art is tried to be flattened by the judges that put numbers on every trick that is performed.
• Which set of constraints are chosen above others? To put numbers and rankings onto individuals, this is important. For a sport where speed is the only aim, this is still relatively straightforward, but for sports that start to get play involved (field sports like hockey, football) rules and regulations become more and more relevant to the result that is being considered final. With jury sports, this is even stronger extrapolated, and the constraints given form almost the basis of the performance of the athlete.
• Still, watching sports is one of the very classical activities of collectivity in humans.
• How come, that we feel attracted to this typology of human hierarchy?
• How come, that we feel attracted to this undefined beauty in dance performance?

Why is there diversity, rather than sameness?

We are the substance: express yourself by the other & be expressed: bodily performance as the closest thing that the self gets in togetherness with the ‘we’

This togetherness is creating based on the movement of the body; using the body as the tool

Being in good physical state is the gift you can give to your environment and to the self

• Dance & dj’s > emergence
• Performance & producer
• Athlete & coach

What is up with watching others perform/ on the edge of their capability? Being in the flow?

THE DEPENDENCY PARADOX !!!

The human is reliant to the connection with the other to keep making sense

Love > being loved, loving, sharing the love > collectivity

De liefde dwingt iedereen om over gevaarlijk ijs te lopen, vervult ons van blijdschap en van angst: de liefde geeft zin aan alles.

You need to dare to lose, to be able to elevate > emergence. Lose time, take risk, lose control: new things will emerge.

Dare is to lose balance: not dare is to lose oneself.

We are human because we create.

Surround yourself with humans who create their lives, more than they complain. Create, more than they consume. Live actively, instead of accepting life as is. Find people chasing down their potential. Sprint together.

Schopenhauers porcupine dilemma: humans, by nature, desire closeness to one another, but by getting close we open the opportunity to hurt one another. Is inspired by a bunch of hedgehogs in winter.

Do I want to stay warm, or do I want to stay safe? Do I want to be protected, or to protect myself? Do I want to protect my heart, or to enrich yourself?

memory, imagination, future thinking. The past to the future, how does it relate to the now?

References

A conceptual affective design framework for the use of emotions in computer game design - Scientific Figure on ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Csikszentmihalyi-s-Flow-Model-Beatson-2015\_fig2\_283621804 [accessed 18 Apr, 2024]

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5-21. doi:10.2307/1511637

Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425-437

Janssen, J., & Verheggen, T. (1997). The Double Center of Gravity in Durkheim’s Symbol Theory: Bringing the Symbolism of the Body Back in. Sociological Theory, 15(3), 294-306. https://doi.org/10.1111/0735-2751.00036

Huizinga, Johan (1944). “Homo Ludens”