Re: SV: SV: Information and Natural Languages

Dear Soeren,

your write:

>
> I did not say that the universe was an autopoietic system. The problem
> in evolutionary theory is that if one believes in it

indeed: "if one believes in it"! What kind of belief is this?

you write:
>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.

what is exactly "a continuation"? is there only one? or many? does it
mean: natura non facit saltus, or does it mean: causa non aequat
effectum?

>So
> some parts of the universe is turning into observing systems.>

Some parts! other parts not? what is 'a part'? why only some parts?
are there, indeed, non-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.

I wonder it too! Because Heidegger poses constantly the question of
thinking reality as a whole ('Das Seiende im Ganzen'). This kind of
thinking of reality as a whole is what he calls 'metaphysical
thinking', i.e. trying to take reality 'as a whole' as something in
front of my (as an ob-ject). This is what he questions, _physis_ is
the Greek experience that something comes out while at the same time
(!, at the same 'time'! what does 'time' here means?) retreating
itself. Heraclit's _physis krypthesthai phyley_ (natures loves to
retreat itself)

> 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.
>

yes insofar as our being-in-the-universe is a peculiar way of being.
But Heidegger says also that we are natural beings and other kind of
living beings are open to the world (in a restricted manner). So the
question is not so much man, but world-openness and its being aware
or not aware (and the kind of awareness).

> 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.
>

dito

> 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.
>

me too

> 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?
>

well, I have no problem thinking not only in terms of _ causa
efficiens_ but also (as Weizs�cker repeteadly remarks) of _causa
formalis_ which is, I think, the basis for our discussion in
introducing the concept of information (and of information as a
causal concept, see Peter Fleisser/Wolfang Hofk.). But looking for
causal explanations is still looking for explanations. I think the
matter of philosophy as a specific kind of questioning is to go
behind (or beyond) explanations, not into mystic or mysteries, but
into the givenness of the given... (this sounds not very clear! I
apologize!)

> 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 am indeed 'humanistic' educated. This does mean I do not appreciate
science etc. But I try to think about science, not to take it for
granted (in a similar way as if I were in the Middle Ages and I would
try to think about Christian faith). This is sometimes a heretical
attitude. We are 'worlds apart' as far as we base are assumptions in
some kind of 'faith'. Of course, I cannot say I have no faith at
all... I remember Ortega y Gasset in this matter when he
distinguishes between ideas and faith (ideas y creencias). Faith is
in this context something like Kuhn's normal science...

> Venlig hilsen/Best wishes

for you too
Rafael

> 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 Mon Dec 15 20:39:29 1997