In this commentary on Rietveld’s inaugural lecture, we exemplify with one of our design cases for project Expedition RWS 2050, how Rietveld’s and our method are complementary. Within this project, RWS invited us to contribute our design skills and make relevant future scenarios experienceable. To scaffold imaginative discussions about everyday life in 2050 with a cross-section of the Dutch population, we wrote seven short speculative stories and designed a set of physical discussion tools. When looking at this design case and the cases Rietveld describes in his inaugural lecture, one can see that we both are guided by and contributing to the development of ecological and enactive philosophy, which rejects the dichotomy between sensorimotor and higher cognition. In his approach, Rietveld pushes the boundaries of the affordances of the material during the making process, whereas we predominantly investigate the affordances of the things and practices which we have designed. Despite these differences, we are both pursuing engagement with philosophical practice through non-discursive means while imagining new sociomaterial practices.

在有关Rietveld就职演说的评论中，我们以Expedition RWS 2050项目的一个设计案例为例，说明Rietveld与我们的方法是如何互补的。在该项目中，RWS邀请我们贡献我们的设计技能，并使相关的未来场景具有经验。为了用20％的荷兰人口来支持关于2050年日常生活的富有想象力的讨论，我们编写了七个简短的投机故事，并设计了一套物理讨论工具。在看这个设计案例和Rietveld在就职演讲中描述的案例时，可以看到我们俩都是受生态和主动哲学的指导并为之发展做出了贡献，这拒绝了感觉运动与更高认知之间的二分法。在他的方法中 Rietveld在制作过程中突破了物料承受能力的界限，而我们主要研究了我们设计的事物和实践的承受能力。尽管存在这些差异，我们俩都通过非散布的方式追求哲学实践，同时构想新的社会物质实践。