SV: SV: Information and Natural Languages

Dear Rafael

I did not say that the universe was an autopoietic system. The problem
in evolutionary theory is that if one believes in it then life has
arisen from the universe and some kind of continuation must exist
between the universe and the living beings according to the present
theories that find evidence that life was created after the Big Bang. So
some parts of the universe is turning into observing systems. Many of
our present theories indicate that the universe is a whole and all
entities are connected by different kinds of fields (much as Aristotle
saw it). I wonder how Heidegger's theory relates to this.

Now I think the Heidegger discriminates between the universe (the
attempt on a scientific description) and the world (of meaningful
relationships we live in), and that is the point you want to make.

As a biologist and ethologist I want to claim that living systems also
live in such a world. I will also like to claim that the theory of
evolution is in accordance with Heidegger's philosophy as it is an ever
developing knowledge.

I do have problems when scientists make evolutionary theory a physical
materialistic theory and thereby make a reductionist scientific
knowledge claim of unnecessary strong metaphysical character.

I do not know why you say that I postulate pseudo-subjectivity? I rather
claim a hyloistic point of view as Peirce (and as Aristotle did but
without a material evolutionary theory). What is your ontological point
of departure that finds this offensive as so many materialistic
scientists?

I cannot help noticing from our discussions that the scientific and
even more the biological knowledge does not seem to play any significant
role in your thinking. Although I enjoy your classical and humanistic
knowledge this bothers me. All your views are very human centered. That
is also OK, but you have somehow to reflect upon our scientific
knowledge. But may be you think that science should not or cannot say
anything significant about the human condition and origin? Somewhere we
do not meet because of some difference in background assumptions. I
mentioned this because I have had similar experiences with other
humanist - that we are "worlds" apart.

I have not forgotten yet to pay my Xmas homage to the archangel of
philosophy in some material symbolic form. Thank you for the wishes.

Venlig hilsen/Best wishes

Assoc. Prof. Ph. D. S�ren Brier
Royal School of Library and Information Science, Aalborg Branch
Langagervej 4, DK-9220 Aalborg �st
Telephone: +45 98 157922 , Fax: +45 98 151042
Homepage: http://www.db.dk/dbaa/sbr/home_uk.htm
Ed. & Publisher of Cybernetics & Human Knowing
homepage: http://www.db.dk/dbaa/sbr/cyber.htm

        ----------
        Fra: Rafael Capurro, Professor[SMTP:CAPURRO@hbi-stuttgart.de]
        Sendt: 11. december 1997 16:36
        Til: Multiple recipients of list
        Emne: Re: SV: Information and Natural Languages

> Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:31:58 +0100 (MET)
> Reply-to: fis@listas.unizar.es
> From: Brier S�ren <SBR@db.dk>
> To: Multiple recipients of list
<fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Subject: SV: Information and Natural Languages
        Dear Soeren,

        thanks for the long mail. I did not read your interesting
papers. As
        I did not get any Christmas present from you until now, I would
very
        much appreciate one like this!
>
> You pose such difficult questions!

        well, I hope so! it is better if we try to pose 'difficult
questions'
        instead of taking things for granted...
>
         you write:
         
> Autopoiesis was originally defined as the state of living
systems by
> Maturana and Varela.
> > Luhmann has suggested a general theory of Autopoiesis . He
writes:
> "If we abstract from life and define autopoiesis as a general
form of a
> system building using self-referential closure, we would have
to that
> there are non-living autopoietic systems" p. 2 in "Essays on
> self-reference".
>
        so we have a(n old) discussion between living and non-living
systems.
        Instead of 'life' we use now the term 'autopoietic' that allows
us to
        speak about (former) non-living systems as 'autopoietic' and
indeed
        the whole universe as an autopoietic system. But does it make
any
        sense to say (as you do at the end of this posting) that the
        universe observes itself etc.? Does it make any sense to
postulate
        this kind of pseudo-subjectivity? (the same with regard to 'the
        evolution')

        You write:
> As far as I know Heidegger it is very close to his theory,
because an
> autopoietic system is always already "in the world". It
emerges from a
> world. But this world only emerges a 'the world' as the
system becomes
> aware of itself and therefore observes the difference between
itself and
> the world.
>
        Heidegger's 'in-der-Welt-sein'-theory is a (in Popperian sense)
        falsification of classical metaphysics. For metaphysics all
entities
        are in the same way in space and in time. Now Heidegger was
looking
        for one example where this is not the case. And this case is the
kind
        of being-in-the-world that our kind of being is. 'World' is not
the
        earth (not: being-on-the-earth), but 'world' means a network (!)
of
        meaningful relationships (Luhmann's 'Sinn'), in which we are
embedded
        'from the very beginning' (a priori). Being-in-the-world means
also,
        that we are not an encapsulated subjectivity trying to reach an
        'outside world', but precisely that we are always embedded in a
        process of dis-covering what things are. Heidegger's
falsification of
        metaphysics means that ontology cannot be based uncritically on
a
        special kind of being (non-living, being, human being,
mathematical
        beings, technical beings, divine beings etc.), but that the
'meaning
        of being' is (for us) an open task. We are continuously creating
or
        'casting' being (casting agents of being) as far as we cast 'a
world'
        i.e.a 'world view'.

> Venlig hilsen/Best wishes

        muchos saludos y Feliz Navidad!
        Rafael
Received on Fri Dec 12 13:21:45 1997