I don't think we have to take such an extreme position as this old man, but there is truth in saying that we have become increasingly abstracted, disembodied from our work through our interactions with machines. By abstracting ourselves this way, we become servants of the machines we use, rather than masters of them. There's nothing wrong in using computers and technology to do our work but, at the end of the work day, can we plainly tell someone else what we did that day? A carpenter can produce a chair, an accountant can produce a tax report, what about you? Were you able to use the machine to produce something tangible, or did the machine use you throughout the day?
Note: I recognize that there are some disciplines that are and will remain purely abstract -such as a physics researcher. But this is the exception, not the norm.
When working on something new and very different only show it to non-technical non-experts. These regular users are a good litmus test of whether there is practical utility or potential for desire in that thing you are working on.
When you show it to experts you may get some valid feedback if the person is actually an expert, but more often you get back insecurity masked as hostility or disregard. People generally, and more especially experts, fear originality. The more a given originality challenges assumptions of current knowledge the more threatening it becomes, which quite possibly exposes the strongest of biases.
The challenge there is how to get far enough so that the new thing can be presented to common people in a way they are capable of digesting while separating valid criticism from uninformed criticism. Clearly, the idea cannot be technical and must have some amount of polish enough for a common user to understand. Can a child understand it? When a novice user is attempting your idea and doesn't understand why they should use your thing or what they are supposed to do with it that is valid criticism. When an expert says your idea will never work without asking questions or diving into the problem space that is invalid criticism.
This reminds me of what Marc Andressen describes when seeking initial investment for Netscape. They went to all the major telecom giants at the time seeking investors and failed most of the time. Nobody thought a browser was worth investing in or that the web in general was worth investment. The idea was frequently disregarded by experts without any actual consideration even when meeting in person.
Nobody is more practiced at failure than an expert.
e.g. How many men in middle management (since 1960s or so, I guess) don't know what they are doing themselves, let alone can explain it to their kids. Boys not having a male role model, if they have no idea what their father does. etc
I find this point interesting when I look at the Macbook I'm using to write this: it is plain, has no "designs" except for the functional aspects it embodies (a screen, a keyboard, a mouse, inputs). Its design does not seek to evoke a response from its user other than the experience that the operating system creates, which can be pleasant sometimes. In this sense, could we say that the design of a Macbook resonates with the craft of the Japanese?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIjvXtZRerY
And journal articles.
And grad students by intellectual mitosis.
Nothing abstract about it.