Keywords

1 Introduction

Anthropologists of the 20th century, typified by Levi-Strauss [1], were surprised to find that the “primitive” societies they researched had in fact observed the world around them in excruciating detail. These societies had specific knowledge of the natural objects and events surrounding them, and were able to skillfully take advantage of these in their daily lives.

Logic is an inherent part of the senses, and this logic contains intelligence within it. Since our inception, humans have always been intelligent beings, and our intelligence has manifested itself through the use of ambient interactions. For example, so-called “primitive” societies use their sharpened intellect to record precisely highly minute changes in natural phenomena, such as the sense of belongingness among living creatures (both aquatic and terrestrial), as well as wind, light, the color of the sky, and the size and type of ocean waves, air currents, and water currents.

The use of ambient interaction integrates the intellect with the senses, in which the five senses are used to make logical thinking. Rather than using abstract concepts to understand things, as modern people do, they used concrete things that were readily found in the natural and human world, fully utilizing their five senses in order to intelligently think about and understand the world. This is the essence of “ambient interaction.” Ambient interaction has no words, rather it is a perception of “emptiness.” There is really such a thing as “emptiness” that truly primitive people had the capability to perceive. “Emptiness” is perceived to be self-transforming properties, which lead any created object to seem incomplete. As such, people set off to build once more. With a new object comes a new accompanying presence of “emptiness.” Emptiness has potential. This is what leads to the formation a rich world of cultures.

In a sophisticated but primitive society, fragments of natural observations and mythological stories are systemized. Large-scale myths began to form, along with the establishment of defined rituals. The world created through “emptiness” is inevitably given mythological properties. This world shares commonalities and properties with self-transforming myths.

The scientific world omits or denies the existence of that which cannot be expressed in words. Consider concepts such as “emptiness.” Since these are outside of the realm of science, their existence is not discussed. Herein lies the reason for the incongruity of the design with the scientific approach. The criterion for defining thought as either objective or subjective is whether or not that thought deals with “emptiness.” As these concepts are utilized in daily life and in design, such practice is far removed from science. In this way, science has evolved denying the existence of “emptiness.”

Design can never be considered a science. The objectivist posits that the non-scientific is subjective, that actions under such a premise merely derive from inertia, and that practitioners of such actions are “primitive.” Consider design as inertia stemming from repeated practice. For example, think of a sketch (a drawing) that is being repeatedly drawn to meet the changing needs of the market. This way of thinking posits that design will never propel history; that is to say, design is a part of the “primitive” meaning inferior and savage.

When using objective thought as a yardstick, the thoughts of designers and so-called “primitives” are considered to be underdeveloped, as they do not order things through a logical process of categorization and resort to a wholly illogical “mystical participation” that mixes hierarchies and order without logic. Opinions from an objective standpoint view such people as if they were thoughtless, though such opinions are far removed from reality, and are rife with prejudice. On the contrary, the designer’s thought works to destroy the externalized order of the objectivist, and attempts to achieve integration with that which cannot be put into words.

What is the true nature of this misunderstood inertia of design? What changes are needed in our thinking for design to break through this barrier of misunderstanding? Mythological thinking and Eastern philosophy provide specific hints to answering these questions. Both of them share a deeper understanding of human beings as a species on the subconscious level.

2 Mythological Thinking and Eastern Philosophy

Design is a process that merges that which is difficult to externalize together with that which is easy to externalize, and does so in a fulfilling way. In other words, design is able to achieve an enriched world by reintegrating objective and subjective thinking–two divided and separated concepts. The designer may to some extent become a primitive; using methods familiar to some indigenous peoples.

There is one character that perfectly embodies the role of the designer in mythology [2,3,4]: the “trickster.” The trickster transcends time and space, and possesses commonalities seen in numerous myths across the world. He or she disturbs and destroys order, while also creating new order. In mythology, the trickster plays the role of a mediator or arbitrator regarding fundamental conflicts. Myths, or stories based on their models, are commonly enjoyed among all peoples. This is because they are accepted by the common unconscious of human beings and run in line with universal principles that reflect a sense of perception seen in people around the world. They carry universal, stereotypical meaning.

If the essence of the designer is to create things or concepts with a story to which anyone can relate, the designer’s ideal way of being is to act or implement the thought of the trickster or the primitive. This follows universal principles that reflect a shared global consciousness. To realize truly universal design, it is necessary to introduce designs that can be shared across the human subconscious, and universally reflect a global shared consciousness.

2.1 Trickster Approach

The “trickster” and the “fool” help to overcome the duality of the mind and body. Restoring the “fool’s” sensibility as a critic of science and civilization would serve to balance the relationship between authority, productivity, and theory [5].

There are numerous ways to fragment the world or universe by examining it in a fixed state, ruling over nature, controlling society, and using concepts in their narrowest and so-called strictest sense, though there are very few ways to restore the sensibilities of the “fool”, because the terms “fool,” “clown,” and “buffoon,” are generally used in a derogatory way.

To be a fool suggests that one is scatterbrained. To call someone a clown in a political context means that they are unreliable. Positivist rationalism limits itself to visible and quantitative reality. As a ritual framework for communication, the moral view in Western European modern civic society discards all forms of expression except for that which can externally be considered to be “serious.” This view only recognizes individual humans as improving statistics, and in other words is of a world dominated by a sense of humanity that denies all variables. In such a world, it is only natural that the “fool,” who makes a living by transforming without any awareness of his or her limits, would be made an outcast or a mere entertainment.

The intelligence associated with the “fool” as “trickster” should inform us of the futility of subscribing to a single reality (absolute truth). If the desire to be concerned with only a single reality is a result of seeking coherence, then the process of denying a single reality and freely living in and moving between multiple realities to perpetually reveal hidden features can be considered a type of spiritual technology that develops more dynamic cosmological dimensions. The “trickster” has attracted psychoanalysts like Jung and mythologists like Lévi-Strauss due to this character’s hidden potential to revive and invigorate the universe. We cannot underestimate the importance of the role played by the theory of the “trickster” in Lévi-Strauss’s work on myths [1, 2]. Lévi-Strauss famously understood that being a “trickster” served as the most effective methods of arriving at a mythological conclusion that could resolve the conflict between the many opposing forces at play.

Intelligence in the 20th century is fundamentally based on expert classification (fragmentation), principles of seriousness (consistency), and a doctrine of strictness (over-emphasis). If they are the “center” of intelligence, the intelligence associated with the “fool” as “trickster” is only considered to be unstable, chaotic or confused, which is just about the “periphery” [6].

Areas with a systemized order, known as the “center”, include engineering design, systems design, and strategic design and have dominated the design field over the last 20 to 30 years due to their high productivity and their compatibility with our information-based society. While the vitality and polysemy of the “periphery” ideally serves as a driving force to activate the border of the center, design has become a tool to serve system science, engineering, and business. As such, the vitality of genuine design is lost. However, the border between the “center” and the “periphery” is not fixed. The systemized “center” of design constantly attempts to erode and take in the “periphery”. The vitality and polysemy of the “periphery” becomes the driving force that propels the border with the “center.”

2.2 Center and Periphery

In an interdisciplinary context, design is ambiguous and difficult to define. As such, it is marginalized. The more one tries to define “design,” the further one lands from the mark. This is because design (or design culture) is not seen to be built on a fixed state of balance; rather, it is conceptualized as an infringement of regulated, organized boundaries. Historically, the arts and crafts movement and Bauhaus period are obvious examples [7].

In the past, as a result of its influence under functionalism, design was limited to the superficial—to that which could easily be described as the subject of research. It is necessary to adjust our definition of design in terms of its relationship to its own depth. The term “depth” here includes its meaning within psychoanalysis. Rather than strategically limiting design to the superficial, it is necessary to approach design in a way that incorporates into its depth the world captured by all the ability of each individual to make full use of their inhabited space.

The superficial refers to areas that are simple to observe in the field of design research, for these are fields that can be systemized, can be easily articulated through writing, and are easy to organize in the form of text. This may enable us to understand superficial systems of communication that are considered indispensable to design. However, there are clearly areas that cannot be overlooked when dealing with how individuals fundamentally interact with their internal and external environment, though these areas be difficult to articulate through language or discuss systematically. However, it is impossible to grasp the meaning of design on a comprehensive level while turning a blind eye to these areas.

All cultures are fundamentally based around a continual division of the human environment between the “center” and “periphery,” the inside and outside, the preferable and not preferable, and the near and far. In other words, in order to strengthen the identity of humans and our culture, we unconsciously create dualities. This becomes clear when observing a child’s developmental process. When developing a conscious awareness of the outside world, infants are instinctively able to classify those who are close to them and those who are not. As a provider of intimate contact, the mother is seen as close and familiar by children, though they are fearful of things with which they have no contact, or that are strange or distant.

Even before developing speech, humans tend to divide the world between the inner and outer. In the process of our development and education, we find the things in the world that are preferable to be close—or central—to us, and associate these things with our identity. That which is not preferable is pushed far away onto the “periphery.” To put it another way, the “center” and the “periphery” are associated with order and disorder, or the friendly and the hostile. The presence of hostility makes humans aware of that which is inner—or “central”—to them on a fundamental level to elucidate its boundary.

We must consider why the “periphery” is excluded and considered unpleasant despite being impossible to think of the “center” without the “periphery”. For example, the political and legal system (the superficial parts of culture) include a basic understanding of the rules involved, and there is a clear purpose and meaning behind the actions that we take. There are “definitions.” The act of “defining” has the effect of keeping one thing while excluding another. That which is ambiguous or undefinable is excluded, whereby a system of order is established. Parts that are excluded due to their indefinability are subject to repeated exclusion (however many times they are debated).

Take the moral and amoral person for example. The moral person is easy to define, since that which is “good” is predictable and reliable in any given situation. The amoral person is difficult to define, since their actions are unpredictable and ambiguous. Regardless of the culture, this ambiguity is a target for exclusion.

The scientific world omits or denies the existence of that which cannot be expressed in words. Consider concepts such as “emptiness.” Since these are outside of the realm of science, their existence is not discussed. Hereupon lies the reason for the incongruity of the magical with the scientific. As such the criterion for defining thought as either objective or subjective is whether or not that thought deals with emptiness. Did not “primitive” people have the capability to perceive such concepts?

“Emptiness” is perceived to have self-transforming properties, which are chaotic and unstable. Seen from the “center,” design is either feared or it is simply used to serve. This is because design provokes instability, transition, and mixtures. In human culture, the target of exclusion tends to be seen as something negative. However, it is an intimate and indispensable element for the depth of human psychology. If we see design (the designer) to take the role of the “trickster” in connecting these two parts and arriving at a synthesis, the work of the designer is to transcend time and look into the “periphery,” using it as a fulcrum to assemble new models of totality.

The process of looking into the future past unstable elements may feel uncomfortable, and this process may become the target of exclusion. However, there is a richness to the polysemy of the “periphery,” and by using it as a stepping-stone for overcoming boundaries, one discovers the existence of new possibilities.

To date, research into design has eliminated from its focus anything that cannot considered to be the “center” and that is commonly excluded. These excluded areas challenge that which is ordered and fixed. Without these provocative elements, the ingenuity of design cannot be grasped. The more these excluded aspects are perpetually pushed into the margins of consciousness, space, and time, the more they reject the homogeneity that leads to a unified culture. This rejection signifies the dynamic relationship between the “center” and the “periphery.”

2.3 Emptiness in Eastern Philosophy

It is speculated that Buddhism was introduced to China around the 1st Century BC, and it is said that the translation of Buddhist scriptures began in earnest in the second half of the 2nd Century AD [8]. At that time, the central issue in the Buddhist world was how to interpret the philosophy of “nothingness” of Taoism (道家), which had attracted the hearts of people instead of Confucianism (儒教), using Buddhist concepts [8]. In the Chinese ideological world at that time, the Prajnaparamita Sutras (般若経) were spreading wide ripples, and efforts were made to understand the idea of “emptiness” preached by the Prajnaparamita Sutra (般若経) with reference to Taoism’s idea of “nothingness” [9]. After that, Buddhism was introduced to Japan, and it is said that the idea of “emptiness” was established as “impermanence” or “deficiency.”

In the form of Buddhism that developed in Japan, concepts like “impermanence” and “deficiency” were first established. The deficiency philosophy represented by Japanese classical literature (Tsurezuregusa 徒然草) created beauty that included suggestiveness, aftertastes, and blank space as aspects of artistic consciousness [9]. In the case of physical art, it also created “ma” as the spaces between music and performance as well as rhythm and pause in martial arts. These “ma,” a characteristic of Japanese culture, have evolved apart from their matrix such as impermanence, and they were developed along with the “ma” of the consciousness in daily life.

If the absolute rule of rationalism is a fulfillment principle that fills “ma,” then recognizing “ma,” perceiving the meaning of silence that cannot be expressed in words and denying rationalistic sense of fulfillment, can be called deficiency. It can also be called an aesthetic state of mind that does not require eternity from fulfillment. Ambience is about the meaning of silence that cannot be expressed in words, and Ambient Interaction is about the perception of it.

Nietzsche’s nihilism [10] is famous as a representative concept of “nothingness” in Western thought. Nihilism is a worldview that refers to a meaningless state that has lost ideals and values. For Nietzsche, “nothingness” was absence, and nihilism was thorough absence. It is the emptiness of where “God” has collapsed, who was the ultimate support of the meaning of living as the highest ground for bringing everything into existence, and it is “eternal meaninglessness.” It can be said that it is distinct from the concept of “emptiness” in the East, which has been developed as artistic consciousness and daily life consciousness.

Looking at Japanese architecture, Bruno Taut [11] was deeply impressed and surprised that “emptiness” is valued and plays an important role in architecture. In particular, his attention was drawn to the fact that there was usually nothing placed in a Japanese tearoom, and it was kept “empty.” In Western culture, rooms are decorated with ornaments such as curtains, furniture, figurines, paintings, and vases. A tearoom, on the other hand, is empty. From that, he saw the spirit of traditional Japanese beauty, different from the West.

Edward Hall [12] compared the Western sense with “ma” and explains as follows: When Westerners think and talk about space, they keep in mind the distance between things. In the West, we are taught to perceive and react to the arrangement of things and to consider space to be “empty.” The meaning of this is apparent when compared to the Japanese. Japanese are trained to perceive the shape and arrangement of space and give meaning to space. This is represented by the word “ma.” This space called “ma” is the fundamental architectural break in all spatial experiences of the Japanese people. In Western Europe, people perceive objects but not the space in between them. In Japan, space is perceived, named, and respected as “ma,” in essence, intervening space.

The characteristic of the concept of “ma” in the structure of Japanese consciousness is that it is not a blank state or a situation where something that should be there is missing, but it is rather a positive creation. Because “ma” is a creation, it lives in daily life and in the essence of art. For example, Japanese literature such as Waka (和歌) and Haikai (俳諧) has been able to incorporate the excellent art of “ma” because the consciousness of “ma” has been nurtured as the foundation of the Japanese way of thinking itself. As a result, Japanese performing arts were also able to form customs like the Noh (能) dance and tea ceremony (茶道) [13]. From the Japanese perspective there is “ma” in nature. The “wind” is considered as the breath of nature, and the “ma” between those breaths is called “Kazama (“ma” of wind).” In Japan, nature is often expressed by the word “wind (風),” in words such as “landscape (風景),” “topography (風土),” and “scenic beauty (風光)” [14]. It can be inferred that the characteristics of Japan’s climate depend on the wind direction in each season, so the Japanese became particularly sensitive to the wind. Because the wind blows through empty space, it matches the Japanese sense of “ma.”

The topography of Japan, an island country with many mountains, is densely populated in narrow plains, with cultivated land being managed intensively and with horticultural delicacy. There are almost no monotonous elements in Japan’s climate and topography, and there are always many changes. The vibrancy of Japan’s nature is something that foreigners who have come to Japan all mention. Japanese have had to live with nature and accept natural disasters such as typhoons, earthquakes, heavy rains, heat waves, and heavy snow. Japan’s nature is constantly moving. The Japanese perceive nature as though it smiles and talks to them as human beings do.

The Japanese embodied over a long period of time the diversity and the quickness of changes in nature. There are four seasons in Europe, but severe changes and sudden natural disasters that overwhelm humans are rare. The conditions of being an island nation of the same ethnicity and language and being blessed with nature that is varied and rich in vitality, in which they must survive through farming and fishing, engrained a particular ability of communication into the Japanese. For them, dialogue among humans and dialogue between humans and nature are of the same dimension. Nature speaks to humans, and humans speak to nature. Humans can talk to other humans through and entrusting nature. From Japan’s topography, geographical conditions, sharing of the same language, and natural conditions, it can be inferred that the language of silence, the perception of the meaning of emptiness, and the language of speaking without words were inevitably established [15]. Formation of the perception and structure of “ma” also accompanies these backgrounds.

Although everyone in Japan feels, creates, and plays with the aesthetics of “ma,” and it is a very familiar thing, it is not always noticeable. Such “ma” has various forms of expression depending on the genre style. What are the common basic conditions of “ma?” “Ma” is a sense of distance when something is being cut temporally and spatially [15]. It varies in size but has this basic condition in common.

The sense of the beauty of “ma” experienced by the Japanese is something unique because they discovered the sense of beauty created by a disconnection in this spatiotemporal “ma,” not just the sense of beauty in interlocking and continuous dynamism. The most important condition of “ma” is this disconnection. In other words, it can be said that “ma” is a sense of beauty created by a sense of distance due to a spatiotemporal cut. The sense and concept of “ma” are extremely Japanese. It is often emphasized that the existence of a “ma” is a characteristic of Japanese performing arts and culture in general [11, 12].

Edward Hall, in his book Beyond Culture [12], classifies the types of language communication around the world into high-context and low-context cultures. A low-context culture trusts the power of words, with the conviction that the correct use of words will transmit what is in one’s mind. There is absolute trust that “if I use words rationally, the other party can communicate rationally as well.” However, for the Japanese, there is an implicit consciousness that we cannot communicate our minds by words alone. The unspoken “implication,” which is not expressed by words, is more highly valued subconsciously, and the perception and structure of “ma” are incorporated. High-context cultures include Japan as well as other Asian and Arabic countries, and Japanese is referred to as the most extreme language in this respect. Low-context cultures include Switzerland, Germany, Scandinavia, and the United States, with German being the most extreme example.

2.4 Ambient Interaction Design

In everyday life, we pick up natural sources of ambient information to understand how things are around us. This is not limited to Japanese culture. For example, people can unconsciously interpret the meaning of silence from outside a window. A subtle combination of brightness, wind direction and humidity give us the feeling of coming rain. The perceptual feeling of a peaceful curtain-wave makes people placid, or people foresee a storm when they see the curtain waving in the dim light of the window, with no explicit information or conscious effort.

We tend to think that we always act consciously, but most ordinary everyday activities are subconscious or unconscious and without intervention from our ego. In fact, there are always moments that exist in our ordinary everyday lives where we all behave in the same subconscious way regardless of ethnicity or culture.

J. J. Gibson [16] attempted to demonstrate the act of subconsciously finding value in the environment from the perspective of ecological epistemology. He claimed that humans subconsciously integrate with their environment through series of actions.

George Lakoff [17] described such subconscious thinking and behavior from the perspective of cognitive linguistics. He argued and attempted to demonstrate that the mind is originally embodied and thought is mostly subconscious. People are not like robots that cannot act unless all knowledge is prepared in the brain beforehand, and subconscious actions are the process of dynamic interaction between humans and their environment.

Ambient intelligent computing is a response to this with the – as yet unrealized – ideal of seamless integration of hardware/software, taking account of human experience, the environment, and interaction and learning between them, leading to the idea of using internet-enabled devices with no consciously effort. But conventional design thinking and methods means that this goal cannot be achieved.

Design is thought to inspire and impress people’s consciousness, but when things or systems are used in a natural flow or in such an environment or situation, people become unaware of those things and do not consider themselves as “users” of them. Certain things disappear from perception and people subconsciously try to harmonize with things and their environment. When walking on a crowded pedestrian crosswalk, people are unaware of the shoes or socks they are wearing and are not consciously thinking about the ground while walking. On the noisy crosswalk, pedestrians walk across without colliding with each other. “Ma” is subconsciously perceived and each route is created there. “Ma” blends into subconscious acts. Humans are constantly and subconsciously seeking opportunities to maintain balance with things, systems, the environment, and nature. It is also creative. People are creative by nature.

Ambient interaction design is based on providing “ma” and foregoing awareness of things that exist in the flow. The “ma” in design is what is created subconsciously which exists during the process of dynamic interaction between humans and their environment, where we extract information from our accumulated physical experience, classify it, and bring it back into our body.

3 Conclusions

In the present paper, we have argued that while the vitality and polysemy of the “periphery” ideally serves as a driving force to activate the border of the center, design has become a tool to serve system science, engineering, and business. As such, the vitality of genuine design is lost.

Design should serve as a challenger that reinvigorates the “center” through its vitality and ability to provoke. In other words, in order to be perceived as an invigored society in itself, design must be sufficiently provocative in the periphery, and the designer must be able to actively go back and forth through the mechanism of the connection point between the “center” and the “periphery.”

Vitality and polysemy decline if the regularity, averageness, and normality of the “center” continues uninterrupted. The vitality of culture is ensured through the conflict between the “center” and concepts divorced from the cultural context such as infantile play, the heterogenous, the latent/unconscious and emptiness. Provocativeness is only achieved through being different.

Artificial intelligence (AI) research and its applications are currently flourishing. As a study of the mind and body, Buddhism philosophy speaks to highly relevant topics, including consciousness, mind/body and self/other. Disciplines in science, philosophy, engineering and design need to work together to ensure that human beings will derive a benefit from the rapid growth of technology. When it comes to AI, Buddhism methodology of subjective reality plays an especially important role for the creation of better AI.

Science has so far explored only the physical “entity.” Paradoxically, technological changes exploiting the progress of science – such as ambient interaction – have made our lives more “primitive”, in the sense the word was once applied pejoratively to the cultures of indigent societies.

From now on, the search for “ma” must be included as well. “ma” is not a position to negate or confront science, but rather aims to inherit scientific exploration and encourage new creations. The current limitations of science to entities and their associations should be replaced, and a more liberal universality should be sought. In the process of pursuing the objective facts of entities and their associations, science has called for abandoning the concepts of self and ordinariness while becoming a third party in order to know the essence of an entity or association. The quest for “ma” aims to revive the concepts of self and ordinariness and take a more subjective approach. Taking advantage of self and ordinariness must be much more universal.

Genuine design is entropy that aims to deconstruct order. However, entropy is unable to continue to survive alone. Rather, it fulfills a role as an activator for the mere shell of order that is present within the dynamics of the structure. Design faces the chaos of the “periphery,” and confronts its own rebirth as an intermediary between the “center” and the margins.

Society has become more savage and less cultured, despite – or because of – the interactive devices that permeate our lives. In this paper we have tried to shed light on how our thinking of design and information-based society should adapt by using universal thinking and aspects of human consciousness/unconsciousness in a new, “primitive” coexistence with modern information technology.