Ontologies,
in my practical understanding, are theoretical frameworks that offer a
set of distinctions -and relations between them- to articulate what are
the fundamental aspects of the being of a particular being. What is
important to keep in mind is that in creating the ontological framework
to grasp the phenomenon, you also define the phenomenon to be grasped
and -by extension- the territory for the emergence of anomalies.
Ancient understanding of being as a being such that has essence and
existence has practical consequences in our daily life. It contributes
to the belief that a human being has a surface, an appearance, and on
the other hand, probably an essence, a fundamentally true nature that
defines what that individual really is. So, appearance and essence can
be coherent, aligned, or they can be highly misleading. What is
interesting about this ancient ontology -still alive in our common
sense- is that it may invite us to ask ourselves about our first
impression and orient us to maintain open questions all along a
relationship. A certain humble inquire in front of the inexhaustibly
other and their unaccessible essence. However, this distinction has its
flip side, and it can be used in a fundamentalist fashion to
characterize others disregarding their appearance -actions, utterances,
presence-. Specially in regimes or institutions that claim to have some
privileged access to the inaccessible essences.
Modern Ontology, as articulated by Descartes and Kant offers a whole
new perspective. Being is characterized as subject able to discern and
doubt while confronted with a unambiguously commensurable res extensa
. In this approach we are a kind of being that is intrinsically well
equipped to observe, explain and transform the world around them.
Moreover, "observation" has a particular characteristic, observations
can be "objective". In other words, individuals may have access to the
essence of things, to the transcendent, universal characteristic of
something. The interesting aspect of this ontology is that it gave a
lot of legitimacy to the individual, the person, to discern and engage
in controversies. This impetus was particularly relevant for the
development of science and technology and marked the
religious/scientific struggles of the Renaissance.
Post Modern Ontologies, as articulated by Heidegger moves the center
of gravity from the individual to the "whole" -clearing-; from the
articulated present-to-hand foreground to the transparent background of
the ready-to-hand -cultural and practical habits-; and from abstract
generalizations to the concrete texture of the
being-there-with-others-in-the-world as such. The beauty and value of
this post-modern ontology is that it provides a robust context for
dealing with the challenges of living together in local/global
communities. In simple terms, only the experience of anxiety
(nothingness) gives us an ephemeral chance to regain some access to the
shared whole, to the shared background and to the other in a vibrant
and creative fashion.
Ontological Design belongs to this post modern stream. Flores makes
an original contribution to post modern ontologies by building on
Heidegger and J.L. Austin controversial understanding of language. In
doing so, he now moves the center of gravity from the past to the
future; and from contemplation to action. In this very same orientation
Hanna Arendt and Paul Ricoeur explore the language of commitments in
moral, ethical and political discourses. The value of this Ontological
Design -post modern- approach is its capacity to design, develop social
practices in a simple, powerful and accessible way.
"Ontologizing" is a OD practice to transform any valuable
disciplinary discourse -set of distinctions- in distinctions that are
build out of specific actions and commitments. In doing so, notions as
communication, listening, innovation, management, trust, leadership or
networked networks loose their vagueness and are transformed in
accesible practical tools.
