RE: [Fis] 'Locale' Knowledge

Dear Jerry,

In discourses words entertain relations among them. Words get meaning in
sentences. The derivation from the roots only provides us with one of
the structural elements (the grammatics), while one can also expect the
semantics and pragmatics of communication.

For example, the word "nature". It is derived from the Latin "natura"
which relates to "nascere" (to be born). We are nowadays inclined to
oppose "nature" to "culture". But in the 17th century, one would oppose
"nature" to "grace". In the 19th century, the major opposition is the
one between "natural sciences" and "Geisteswissenschaften", etc. Thus,
"nature" is then opposed to "mind".

It is sometimes useful to go back to the roots, but it is not sufficient
for clarifying the confusion.

With kind regards,

Loet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es
> [mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of jlrchand@erols.com
> Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 8:17 PM
> To: Rafael Capurro; fis-listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] 'Locale' Knowledge
>
>
>
> Dear Loet, Pedro, Rafeal and All:
>
> Please allow me to add a general comment to the course of the
> discussion. It concerns the usage of language and the transport of
> "information" among individuals from different disciplines. Although
> Pedro, Rafeal and I have discussed this earlier, the current
> discussion provide a crisp example of the challenges we face.
>
> Can we agree that each academic discipline has developed, over
> substantial durations, a vocabulary that is used by members of that
> discipline? In all cases, the language of the discipline is derived
> from natural language. Natural language serves as the source of
> communication within the discipline; it is modified with special
> definitions to meet the needs of the discipline. Of course, natural
> language is not unique by itself. As the set of disciplinary
> languages emerge in time, more definitions are added to the natural
> language terms. Technically, we have what is known as linguistic
> "polysema" or polysemic usage. The same term is used in multiple
> meanings. When one enters a poly-disciplinary discussion such as
> FIS, individuals from different disciplines often disagree because
> each translates a term from natural language into a technical
> language, perhaps generating two different meanings. Each meaning
> may be correct in one discipline but incorrect in the other. The
> "bijection" of normal discourse (the back and forth of normal
> conversation) is lost. The association of symbols and meanings
> generates two different "graphs" (patterns) in the two (or more)
> individual minds.
>
> For very broad examples, consider the semantics of four pairs
> of disciplines:
>
> Mathematics and Physics
> Mathematics and Chemistry
> Chemistry and Biology
> Biology and Medicine
>
> In the first pair, physical terminology has co-evolved with
> mathematical terminology such that communication is facile between
> these two disciplines. Often, only the questions of logical rigor
> and exactness separate the linguistic usages in these two tightly
> coupled disciplines.
>
> In the second pair, the technical language of mathematics and
> chemistry share the natural numbers and little else. Symbols for
> chemical elements were assigned and logical meaning attached to the
> symbols (for example, to positions in the table of chemical
> elements.) Chemical thinking evolved much later in history than the
> foundations of mathematical thinking and hence it was necessary to
> develop separate terminology for the unique character of chemical
> experiments. Such experiments reveal that the nature of matter is
> not simply represented in the precedence of mathematical terminology.
> Instead, chemical terminology requires special names for each
> chemical substance which represents a very special sort of
> mathematical object related to a "graph" of relations. From my
> personal experience, I conclude that it is virtually impossible to
> communicate between these two disciplines.
>
> In the third pair, chemical and biological terminology have grown
> closer and closer during the past 100 years. Concepts of biology are
> often best expressed in chemical (or biochemical) terminology.
> Nevertheless, logically unique phenomenon in biology do not exist in
> the logic of chemistry (for example, development and reproduction).
> Often we can translate between chemistry and biology by carefully
> specifying definitions. For example, the biological concept of
> phermone is dependent on chemical definitions of substance / matter.
>
> Biological and medical terminology have also grown close in the past
> century. The enormous richness of medical terminology can often be
> translated into terms of normal or abnormal function, based on an
> understanding of biological anatomy and physiology.
>
> How does one learn to navigate semantically among these
> poly-disciplinary "Towers of Babel" as Alicia Juerraro refers to this
> communications problem?
>
> Very briefly, my approach has been to study the roots of terms in
> their natural language source in order to seek to bridge the
> polysema challenge. For English, the majority of our technical words
> come from Latin or Greek roots. For example, the Latin root, "fer",
> meaning to bear or to carry, consistently expresses itself in such
> derivatives as confer, defer, infer, prefer, refer, and transfer. In
> my technical usage of terminology, I seek to preserve the intent of
> the original meaning of the root.
>
> (On this list, I suspect that Rafeal also follows a similar
> approach to usage.)
>
> Now, after this long "aside", I return to the original exchange with
> Loet on the meaning of the term "local".
>
> The term "Local" is derived from the same root as the term "locus" or
> "loci" or locate or location. The concept is to put or to place.
> When something is placed in a location it may be viewed as either
> *independent* or *dependent* in its new location. In chemistry, when
> we "put" a nitrogen atom adjacent to a oxygen atom in a molecule, the
> two atoms not only become part of the same system, they also interact
> and influence one another. Each suffers the loss of *independence*
> and each contributes to the motion or behavior of the molecule as a
> whole. Thus, I conclude that the global information / communication
> potential of a molecule is created from the *dependence* on
> components. It is not merely "local". A similar analysis of the
> term "recognition" as related to "cognition" as related to our
> concepts of "knowledge" fits this pattern of usage.
>
> I suspect that similar lines of reasons will emerge in our
> next discussion.
>
> It is probably wishful thinking to hope that this brief note
> communicates deeply with the many disciplines represented on the FIS
> list. Perhaps Rafeal can expand on his views of polysema.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jerry LR Chandler
>
>
>
>
>
> >Dear Pedro,
> >
> >completely agree. The locality question concerns the context of
> >discovery as well as the context of justification and their mutual
> >relationship. What emerges as new paradigm is not deterministically
> >predictable (Greek mathematics and metaphysics + Lull + Pascal +
> >Leibniz + G�del + Turing + Quantum Physics +.... and then
> (!?) you get
> >today's digital-informational view of reality. Amazing, isn't it?
> >
> >Rafael
> >
> >Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro
> >FH Stuttgart, Hochschule der Medien (HdM) University of Applied
> >Sciences, Wolframstr. 32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany Universit�t
> >Stuttgart, Institut f�r Philosophie, Dillmannstr. 15, 70049
> Stuttgart,
> >Germany
> >Private: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
> >E-Mail: rafael@capurro.de; capurro@hdm-stuttgart.de
> >Voice Stuttgart: + 49 - 711 - 25706 - 182
> >Voice private: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 22
> >Fax: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 21
> >Homepage: www.capurro.de
> >Homepage ICIE (International Center for Information Ethics):
> >http://icie.zkm.de
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Pedro C. Mariju�n" <marijuan@unizar.es>
> >To: "fis-listas.unizar.es" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> >Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 11:06 AM
> >Subject: Re: [Fis] 'Locale' Knowledge
> >
> >
> > > Dear colleagues,
> > >
> > > A very intriguing aspect of the current discussion concerns the
> > > relationship between life and mechanics (dynamics). In my
> opinion,
> > > and perhaps also following Rosen's authority, life goes beyond
> > > dynamics and is "more universal". The living system
> couples to its
> > > boundary conditions in a new 'active' way, roughly speaking an
> > > 'informational' one (which has been called agency,
> autonomy, etc.).
> > > Its self-production will precisely follow from the appropriate
> > > communication with the environmental conditions. Then, this
> > > 'informational' mode of 'being in the world'
> >creates
> > > a fundamental breach in the systemic levels that were discussed
> >recently...
> > > It is a theme that dovetails with the discussion that Soeren will
> > > start around next 22 nd on Autopiesis and Meaning --so I
> would wait
> > > for his arguments.
> > >
> > > About 'locale knowledge' we tend to focus on the products
> of science
> > > (theories, laws, concepts, etc.) arguing out from the idealized
> > > characteristics usually implied, and then we completely disregard
> > > the limitations of the scientific practitioners. However, the
> > > 'limited prehension' of the scientific
> observer/practitioner could
> > > be a very basic aspect in order to make sense of the circulatory
> > > dynamics of 'scientific networks.'
> > >
> > > best regards
> > >
> > > Pedro
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > fis mailing list
> > > [email protected] http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >fis mailing list
> >[email protected] http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fis mailing list
> fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
>

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Jan 20 06:51:34 2004