Re: [Fis] Re: fis Digest, Vol 490, Issue 2Re: [Fis] Re: fis Digest, Vol 490, Issue 2
From: Igor Rojdestvenski <[email protected]>
Date: Wed 08 Feb 2006 - 13:32:31 CET
Dear colleagues,
Something is certainly lost in translation. Is there a meaning outside the mind? Is it not that WE
create a meaning in the process of discourse?
If yes, then in the chemical (or any other) hierarchies there are no meanings, but a possibility of a
meaning, should an appropriate mind come nearby.
If not, then we need to define meaning before we start discussing such involved questions.
Maybe my education is not enough to perceive the subtleties, but I think that I am unable to
understand, whether meaning is preserved or not before I receive a clear definition of meaning.
Otherwise it is too vague, and we may as well do a very simple trick.
Just find something that is preserved in chemical hierarchies, and then call it meaning :))))))
Igor
----- Original Message -----
If one considers that the conservation rules of chemistry ensure the
preservation of symbolic meanings in hierarchies, then I fail to see the logic basis of your
conclusion.
The preservation of chemical identity is intrinsic to the construction of
chemical hierarchies and to the composition of living systems from nutrients. In what sense should
meaning extend beyond the essence of matter and dynamics?
Dear Jerry, John, and colleagues,
In my opinion, Jerry brings here precisely to the point what has remained an open
question in our discussion. Meaning has to preserved in hierarchies at the chemical and biological
level. In discourse, meaning can be deconstructed and reconstructed, and therefore is at variance.
The question then is: how much is it constrained by historical contingencies?
Let us first consider the psychological level. Is the Cogito part of the phase space?
This has been a subject of intense philosophical discussion (mind/body problem, determination/free
will, etc.). Obviously, the Cogito is constrained and the space for variation in providing
psychological meaning to events (information) is limited. However, the intersubjectivity among
Cogitantes--that which Husserl calls the Cogitatum--does no longer have to be constrained. The
depends on its organization.
The hierarchical organization of society is associated in the sociological literature
with the high cultures like the Holy Roman Empire. The breaking of this order is considered as
modernization. Luther's call to provide the Bible with new meaning by private reading can be
considered symbolic for this. The printing press, etc., then also allowed for new meaning to be
codified, that is, temporarily fixed but open for de- and reconstruction. The social system seems a
system that has to remain on this borderline between fixing meanings and reconstructing them. The
fixing is needed for us (as contingencies) and for us to live in institutions, but not intrinsic to
the operation.
It seems to me that if meaning can be a source of variance, it can no longer be
considered as fixed.
With best wishes,
Loet
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loet Leydesdorff
The Knowledge-Based Economy: Modeled, Measured, and Simulated
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 on Wed 08 Feb 2006 - 13:38:30 CET