# created ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM -"windsurf" WHERE file.cday = date(this.file.name) AND !startswith(file.folder, "windsurf") SORT file.cday ASC ``` # modified ```dataview LIST WITHOUT ID file.link FROM -"windsurf" WHERE file.mday = date(this.file.name) AND !startswith(file.folder, "windsurf") SORT file.mday ASC ``` --- # [[diary and thoughts]] #thought #diary --- Another Plan for the environmental paper (some [[good stuff]] not amazing) # cover let for ergo, [[beauty in use]] #paper/beautyinuse #correspondence/journal To: Area Editor and Referees A, G, H Journal: Ergo – An Open-Access Journal of Philosophy Date: 4 July 2025 (Europe/Rome) Dear Sir/Madam, Thank you for your feedback and for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript, “[[Beauty in Use]]: [[Agentive Phenomenology]] and [[the Aesthetics of Design]].” We have found the comments from the area editor and all three referees to be helpful in strengthening and clarifying our argument. We have undertaken a revision to address the points raised. Below, we outline what changes we have made to the paper in response to the various concerns that were raised. Response to the Area Editor The Area Editor noted that referees agreed on [[the need]] for “more on [[the relationship between]] the artifactual properties of [[the design]] itself and the psychological properties of the user experience.” In response to this concern, we have reworked and expanded the [[second half]] of the paper to connect artifacts' physical or structural properties and their users' first-person phenomenology. Section 2.2 (pp. 14–19) now argues more directly that use must be considered an [[aesthetic dimension]] in its own right, rather than a means of functional assessment. Following this, Sections 3 and 4 (pp. 19–32) have been revised to more robustly develop what we term an ‘[[agentive phenomenology]]’ of design. This [[new framework]] directly links concrete design features (e.g., a tool’s balance, a car's steering-ratio, a keyboard's key-travel) to specific, nameable qualities of the user’s experience, such as ‘agentive effortlessness’ and ‘harmony of action.’ Furthermore, in line with the observation about the “sharpness of the game vs real-world distinction,” we have clarified our position. Section 3.2 (pp. 22–24) now includes a direct critique of applying game-centric theories to design, showing why Nguyen’s concept of ‘harmony of capacity’ (being pushed to one's limits) does not map cleanly onto the use of most everyday artifacts. Subsequently, Section 4 (pp. 24–32) builds our alternative by analysing the differences between actions performed within the constrained “magic circle” of a game versus those performed “in the wild.” We use concepts like purposiveness, means-ends teleology, and Horgan’s ‘[[chromatic illumination]]’ to argue that actions with [[designed objects]] in everyday life are embedded in a web of goals and meanings, which alters their aesthetic character. Response to Referee A Referee A raised a question regarding our use of Montero’s work, particularly concerning the distinction between flow and effort and how this relates to design aesthetics. To address this, we have introduced a new, dedicated subsection, §3.3 “Aesthetic Effortlessness in Design Interactions” (pp. 24–28). This section provides a treatment of Montero’s concept of 'superfluity of fitness,' which we then adapt from a third-person observation to a first-person experience we call 'agentive effortlessness.' We use this new concept to explain the aesthetic satisfaction derived from using well-designed objects, and we apply it to differentiate between two distinct modes of experience: 'expert-oriented' effortlessness (e.g., a skilled chef using a balanced knife) and 'novice-oriented' effortlessness (e.g., a new user easily navigating an iPod). This framework addresses the referee’s question about what kinds of experiences are at play. We have also added explanatory footnotes (6 and a) to further clarify the terminology and its sources. Response to Referee G Referee G stated, “I don’t see what a ‘richer experience of agency’ contributes to an understanding of design in particular.” The revised manuscript now provides an answer to this challenge across the entire second half. Sections 3 and 4 have been expanded to build a full agentive framework. This framework is what allows our account to move beyond a purely functional assessment. By defining concepts like 'agentive effortlessness' and 'harmony of action', we can pinpoint the specific aesthetic rewards that arise from the interaction itself—rewards that are unique to the user and cannot be appreciated by a mere spectator. This demonstrates the contribution that the 'richer experience of agency' makes to a complete aesthetics of design. Additionally, Referee G found the initial distinction between game-framing and real-world-framing to be unsubstantiated. As detailed in our response to the Area Editor, we have addressed this in Section 4. This section now draws a theoretically grounded contrast between the artificial 'magic circle' of games and the complex, goal-oriented context of 'in the wild' design use, leveraging concepts from Huizinga and Horgan to substantiate the distinction. Response to Referee H Finally, Referee H asked for a clarification of "the relation between the designed object and the experience of using it," specifically questioning whether the experience itself is what merits aesthetic pleasure. We have revised the manuscript to affirm that this is our central claim. The thesis is now stated in the final paragraph of the introduction (p. 6), where we note that aesthetic value can be found in the experience of use. In Section 2.2, we now distinguish our position from Forsey's more directly by arguing for a move beyond 'assessment-via-use' to an 'appreciation-of-use.' Section 3.3 provides a model of how a designed object's specific form and function directly elicit a phenomenologically valuable and aesthetically meritorious interaction, thereby answering the referee's question. We believe that these revisions have improved the paper and have addressed the referees’ concerns in full. We thank you once again for your time and guidance. Sincerely, Nick Young & co-authors ([[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]))