Re: [Fis] 'Locale' Knowledge

Dear Loet, Pedro, Jerry, Koichiro and all,

as you know the word Chemistry has its origin in Arab: 'al-kimiya' which
means the art of transforming metals (particularly into gold). Chemists are
in some way experts in metallic 'trans-lations' (= Latin 'transl-latere'= to
bring from one (local) place into another one and so (!) to change its
properties).

There is in some way a chemistry of language, i.e., the art of translations
and sometimes we dream from a meta-language (the language of unified
science, as was called in Vienna at the beginning of the past century), and
some of us might think this is indeed mathematics and nowadays: the
'im-presssion' or 'in-formation' of the dual code 0/1 into the
electromagnetic medium. Therefore we may also think today that we have
understood something in its being when we have grasped it in a digital way
(also in case we grasp 'material' things or whatever). I call this
perspective our present 'digital ontology' which does not mean that we think
(in a New-Pythagorean way) everthing IS digital, this would be digital
metaphysics, which is in some way the view taken by Italo-Oxford philosopher
Luciano Floridi with his philosophy of information, see also his book (ed.):
The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy and Information" 2004) and
particularly his fascinating essays on this subject in his website.
What I mean is less dramatic (or metaphysic) it 'just' means that we take
(in everyday life but also in science) a (mostly implicit) perspective about
the meaning of being in order to grasp things in their being, and that this
perspective (which is then more epistemological than metaphysical) is
characterized today by digital technology.

This is, so to speak, our (historical) 'local' perspective and... we always
have a local perspective, as we are 'beings-in-time' (animal rationale et
mortale). This is where Koichiro's thinking in/about time joins, if we make
this kind of 'trans-lation' the realm of (scientific) thinking out of what
happens in/with molecules. Instead of looking for a kind of meta-language of
science we are looking now, under timely conditions, for different kinds of
'trans-lations' from one (scientifc) idiom into the other. Ghis question of
translation was also thematized for instance by Quine and other in the last
century.

We could also say, that we cannot grasp anything from all kinds of
perspectives at once due precisely to the fact that we are 'in' time. We
have to make our choices, but reality is alwas 'as a whole' there. So when
we try to 'imitate' something (I join now the discourse and theory on the
nature of the artificial as developed by Massimo Negrotti, Univ. of Urbino)
we have to make our choices (concerning its substance and/or processes).
What we get is something artificial with regard to something considered to
be 'original' (not: natural, Negrotti criticizes the classic distinction
natural/artificial). In some sense this is also what happens wenn we
('chemically') trans-late from one language/place to the other. We have
sometimes the (mad) idea (or illusion), we could translate everything
(every language) into 'our own' (our so called 'mather tongue'), but halas,
we 'dis-cover' (with time, in time, timely?) that it is much more
'realistic' (and thrilling!) to 'trans-late' ourselves (and our Selves) to
other places (and idea developed by Heidegger in some of his late writings
and not far away from late Wittgestein's 'Sprachspiele') to other 'places'.
This means also to take this 'metamorphic' (beyond forms) condition of
language not as something we should or could avoid (by creating a
super-language), but something we can profit from as it allows us not only
to change (ontological) perspectives, but also to grasp beings in their
specific appearence. This is, I believe, what Jerry tells us with regard to
the language of Chemistry as grasping the phenomena (of substance structures
and their possible transformation) less with mathematics that with graphs:
not that we could not also look mathematically at substances, but then we
loose a specific 'chemical' perspective.

If we take this view with regard to the process itself of how scientific
theories (and other kinds of responses to reality such as religions, art
etc.) develop, we can conclude (and this was one intention of my mail on the
historical origins of today's digital ontology) that some transformations
happen (and other do not) and that we are not the absolute 'masters' of this
process, i.e., we think and in some way 'are thought' or 'co-respond' (give
an answer together with....) to what phenomena through our own theories and
practices tell us they are/can be. In some way we can give reasons for this
process, historical ones (context of discovery) as well as systematic ones
(context of justification), but it is amazing, I think, that we respond to
some perspectives or 'messages' (as we can call them) and not to others.
What are the reasons for our own theoretical and practical preferences? Why
do we 'believe' (or 'take for granted') in one message and not on the other?
Why Newton and not Goethe? Why Galileo and not the Bible? Why Jesus and not
Mani? why...? What are the 'conditions of credibility' (to speak in a
Kantian idion) of messages? (and we live more and more in a 'message
society' where this process is becoming extremely complex...)
There are of course a lot of possible reasons for these preferences, but in
some way they (or at least some of them) remain a 'mystery' in the sense
that there is a chaotic process of trans-mission (also in the sense of a
'mission' with regard to a 'message) that is not only a question of
geographical 'location' (and trans-location or trans-lation) but also what
local expectations (related many times to pragmatic aspects of survival).
This was the background of my short mail on the origin(s) of today's digital
ontology going back to Greek speculations on mathematics (numbers and points
as separated from their 'natural' place in 'natural' beings = physei onta),
through Logics (Scholastic), Lull etc.etc.
Just very shortly the question of etymology: it is at the opposite of the
programm of a unified and univocal (and universal and meta-local or
meta-physical) language (of 'science'). No question: searching for the
'true' meaning (=etymon) of words does not solve any problems but it might
help to weaken the strong illusion of a super-stable language (of course we
need in science clear concepts and univocity, but as in physics, sometimes
we take our wishful thinking for the whole of reality and... we loose the
possibilities offered by 'relativity'). In this sense 'etymological'
speculations (playing with language and its often absurd and/or joyful,
ridicoulous, laughable...aspects: but it is in fact the our own 'human'
medium!....) if we grasp them ironically that might helpf us to make
solluble (as in Chemistry) what seems to be hart and for ever. Our
mis-understandings often at the origin of our best (and, worst) ideas (and
actions)!

Cheers

Rafael

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Wed Jan 21 11:16:34 2004