----------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
year 6, Issue 2 (Semi-Annual 2021)                   CIAUJ 2021, 6(2): 81-93 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Alinam Z. Investigating the Situated Process of Meaning Development in Urban Spaces from the Perspective of Conventional Perception (E’tebariat) Theory. CIAUJ 2021; 6 (2) :81-93
URL: http://ciauj-tabriziau.ir/article-1-328-en.html
Faculty of Architecture and Urbanism, Tabriz Islamic Art University, Tabriz, Iran , z_alinam67@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (1557 Views)
What distinguishes mankind from other creatures is that man has been settled within a world of meaning. Urban space as a cultural context is a space that includes spatial and mental aspects and the presence of man and his actions in that space is very important in its meaning. The importance of research on the meaning of urban space arises from qualitative aspects in human-environmental issues. Patterns and models related to the perception and recognition of human meanings of the environment in Western societies may not be relevant in accordance with Islamic culture. In the analysis of this process, the use of sciences related to cognitive and perceptual structures of the individual to explain the process of meaning development in urban space seems necessary and allows the study of situated processes involved in the formation of meaning perception. On the other hand, the cognitive-situated process of meaning perception in Islamic philosophy can be studied through the theory of Conventional perception (E’tebariat) theory and the philosophical level is a step to localize and recognize the cognitive-cultural process of developing environmental meanings. This study seeks to explain the position of Conventional perception theory in the situated meaning of urban space and for this purpose, by comparative study of meaning perception process from the perspective of situated cognition theory and Conventional perception theory of Allameh, uses two fields of cognitive science and Islamic philosophy. By examining the factors of Conventional (E’tebari) meanings development in urban spaces in accordance with the theory of situated cognition, the situated process of meaning development in urban space is presented from the perspective of Conventional perception theory. According to the research findings, the situated process of meaning development can be explained according to Conventional perception theory in two processes: contextual and voluntary processes. In the contextual process of meaning development, real perceptions under the influence of one's theoretical science lead to the development of real meanings of urban space. This process is in accordance with reality (objective facts) and is therefore a process with a fixed structure. The process underlies the development of the urban space meaning in Conventional perception theory based on objective facts in urban space. In this process, every urban space is a bed of artificial and natural physical affordances that can be perceived and identified by the physical and objective factors in it. In the voluntary process of meaning development, unrealistic perceptions under the influence of one's practical intellect lead to the development of Conventional meanings from the environment. Conventional meanings are defined based on real meanings and in line with the will of the individual have individual and collective actions as the real effects of Conventional meanings. Individual Conventional meanings are universal and social Conventional meanings are specific and variable meanings that depend on time and place situations. The voluntary process of meaning development in Conventional perception theory is based on the Conventional meanings of the environment. In the voluntary process of meaning development, unrealistic perceptions under the influence of one's practical intellect lead to the development of Conventional meanings of urban space. Conventional meanings are defined based on real meanings that have individual and collective actions as the real effects. Individual Conventional meanings are universal, and social Conventional meanings are specific and variable, which depend on time and place situations and are always redeveloped by changing Conventional meanings. In this process, each urban space is a bed of cognitive-social affordances that can be perceived and identified by the Conventional characteristics attributed to it, and culture is the main background for the formation of these affordances. Considering that the field of Islamic urbanism is a nascent branch of urbanism, in order to theorize, explain and strengthen the scientific position of this field at the philosophical level and studying issues related to man and the environment from the perspective of Islamic thought. Tabatabai's Conventional perception theory is a step towards localization of Western theories.
Full-Text [PDF 1883 kb]   (738 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original Article | Subject: Conceptualization of theorizing in Islamic architecture and urban ism
Received: 2021/11/26 | Accepted: 2022/01/23 | ePublished: 2022/01/30

References
1. Aghanazari, Hossein. 2008. The place of Conventional perception theory in socio-economic relations, Islamic economics studies, 1. [In Persian]
2. Alinam, Zahra, Kristian Tylén, Mohammad Taghi Pirbabaei, and Minou Gharehbaglou. 2021. Cognitive-Cultural Looping Mechanism of Urban Space Conceptualization. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-021-09642-8 [DOI:10.1007/s12124-021-09642-8 (Online publication: 29 August 2021)]
3. Alinam, Zahra, Mohammad Taghi Pirbabaei, and Minou Gharehbaglou. 2023. Explaining the Cognitive-Cultural Approach in Comparison with Developmental Approaches to Meaning in Urbanism. Urban Planning Knowledge (Under Press). [In Persian]
4. Alinam, Zahra. 2017. The Effects of Individual Factors on the Formation of Cognitive Maps. ICONARP International Journal of Architecture and Planning, 5(1), 134-150. [DOI:10.15320/ICONARP.2017.18]
5. Auburn, Timothy, and Rebecca Barnes. 2006. Producing place: A neo-Schutzian perspective on the 'psychology of place'. Journal of environmental psychology, 26(1): 38-50. [DOI:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.03.002]
6. Bahreini, Hossein. 2002. Urban design process. Tehran: Tehran University. [In Persian]
7. Durning, Steven J., and Anthony R. Artino. 2011. Situativity theory: a perspective on how participants and the environment can interact: AMEE Guide no. 52. Medical teacher, 33(3): 188-199. [DOI:10.3109/0142159X.2011.550965]
8. Gustafson, Per. 2001. Meaning of Place: Everyday Experience and Theoretical Conceptualization. Journal of environmental psychology, 21(1): 5-16. [DOI:10.1006/jevp.2000.0185]
9. Inam, Aseem. 2002. Meaningful urban design: teleological/catalytic/relevant. Journal of urban design 7(1): 35-58. [DOI:10.1080/13574800220129222]
10. Jabareen, Yosef. 2009. Ethnic Groups and the Meaning of Urban Place: The German Colony and Palestinians and Jews in Haifa. Cities, 26(2): 93-102. [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2008.12.002]
11. Johnson, Mark. 2005. The Philosophical Significance of Image Schemas, In: From Perception to Meaning; Image Schemas in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Beate Hampe and Hoseph E. Grady. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. [DOI:10.1515/9783110197532.1.15]
12. Kudryavtsev, Alex, Richard C. Stedman, and Marianne E. Krasny. 2012. Sense of place in environmental education. Environmental education research, 18(2): 229-250. [DOI:10.1080/13504622.2011.609615]
13. Kudryavtsev, Alex. 2011. Sense of Place in Environmental Education. Environmental Education Research, 18(2): 229-250. [DOI:10.1080/13504622.2011.609615]
14. Lalli, Marco. 1992. Urban-Related Identity: Theory, Measurement. Journal of environmental psychology, 12(4): 285-303. [DOI:10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80078-7]
15. Li, Shu-Chen. 2003. Biocultural orchestration of developmental plasticity across levels: the interplay of biology and culture in shaping the mind and behavior across the life span. Psychological bulletin, 129(2), 171.v [DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.171]
16. Lynch, Kevin. 1960. The Image of the City. London: The MIT Press.
17. Mohammadpour. Ahmad. 2013. Qualitative research method anti-method; Logic and design in qualitative methodology. Tehran: Sociologists Publications. [In Persian]
18. Mosleh, Ali Asghar. 2013. Allameh Tabatabai's Credit Perceptions and Philosophy of Culture. Tehran: Roozgar No. [In Persian]
19. Motahari, Morteza. 1985. Introduction and footnote to the book Principles of Philosophy and Method of Realism. Tehran: Sadra Publications. [In Persian]
20. Oyserman, Daphna, Sheida Novin, Nic Flinkenflögel, and Lydia Krabbendam. 2014. Integrating culture-as-situated-cognition and neuroscience prediction models. Culture and Brain 2(1): 1-26. [DOI:10.1007/s40167-014-0016-6]
21. Oyserman, Daphna. 2017. Culture three ways: Culture and subcultures within countries. Annual review of psychology 68: 435-463. [DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033617]
22. Pakzad, Jahanshah and Hamideh Bozorg. 2015. Alphabet of Environmental Psychology for Designers, Tehran: University of Tehran. [In Persian]
23. Parsi, Hamidreza. 2001. Understanding the content of urban space. Journal of Honar-Ha-Ye-Ziba 11. [In Persian]
24. Scheibe, Erhard. 2011. Between Rationalism and Empiricism: Selected Papers in the Philosophy of Physics. NY: Springer.
25. Schwarz, Norbert. 2007. Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social cognition 25(5): 638-656. [DOI:10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.638]
26. Sgarbi, Marco. 2013. The Aristotelian Tradition and the Rise of British Empiricism: Logic and Epistemology in the British Isles (1570-1689). London: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-94-007-4951-1]
27. Sheldon, Kennon M. 2004. The psychology of optimal being: An integrated, multi-level perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Smith, Eliot R., and Gün R. Semin. 2004. Socially situated cognition: Cognition in its social context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 36: 53-117. [DOI:10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36002-8]
29. Stedman, Richard.C. 2008. What do we 'mean' by place meanings? Implications of place meanings for managers and practitioners, in Understanding Concepts of Place in Recreation Research and Management. Kruger L. E., Hall T. E., Stiefel M. C., editors. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
30. Steinø, NICOLAI. 2003. Urban Design between Theory and Practice. The Welfare City Project.
31. Tabatabai, Mohammad Hossein. 2008. Collection of treatises of Allameh Tabatabai. Qom: Book Garden. [In Persian]
32. Tabatabai, Mohammad Hossein. 2009. Man from the beginning to the end. Translated by Sadegh Larijani. Qom: Book Garden. [In Persian]
33. Tabatabai, Mohammad Hussein. 1995. Tafsir-Al-Mizan. Translated by Mohammad Baqir Mousavi. Qom: Islamic Publications Office affiliated with the Qom Seminary Teachers Association. [In Persian]
34. Tomasello, Michael, Malinda Carpenter, Josep Call, Tanya Behne, and Henrike Moll. 2005. Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and brain sciences, 28(5): 675-691. [DOI:10.1017/S0140525X05000129]
35. Tomasello, Michael. 2009. The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard university press. [DOI:10.2307/j.ctvjsf4jc]
36. Tylén, Kristian, Riccardo Fusaroli, Peer F. Bundgaard, and Svend Østergaard. 2013. Making sense together: A dynamical account of linguistic meaning-making. Semiotica, 2013(194): 39-62. [DOI:10.1515/sem-2013-0021]
37. Vesali Naseh, Morteza. 2015. Fundamentals of semantics of construction and perception of concepts in humanities. Journal of Mind, 64. [In Persian]

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Culture of Islamic Architecture and Urbanism Journal

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb