Dear Rafael and colleages,
Thanks for the sympathetic response concerning the evolutionary views on
ethics (see below). You are right about my mistake between the "zoe" and
the "bios" (quite tricky that historical zoologization of the "bios"
concept!). Let me go one step beyond in the evolutionary-informational
direction: if we consider the advancement of the life cycle as the "primum
mobile" behind the whole communication processes of the individual (say,
the cell cycle as I tried to schematize in the past discussion concerning
the biomolecular realm), then both the "zoe" and the "bios" get united in
their tentative maximization of fitness for the individual. More
concretely, behind our conceptualizations (in "ethics"), there is the
generative reality of the human life cycle in a socially complex dimension,
realizing that a considerable portion of our own fitness rests upon the
global fitness of a collectivity which is organized far away from our
instinctive "zoe". The historical alienation of emotions, feelings, and
ethics itself out from the scientific realm has been a conceptual
mirage---presumably there would be neat scientific-philosophical
foundations for "information ethics".
would you agree with those rushed opinions?
Pedro
PS. I will respond to Richard later on, as my two cents for the week are
depleted and his comment (and Marcin's) are quite strategic on fis futures.
At 20:01 07/03/2006, you wrote:
>Dear Pedro,
>
>very shortly. I very much agree with your evolutionary views.
>The only point of disagreement concerns the use of the word
"bios" instead
>of "zoe" in the case of "proto-groups," if we agree
that "zoe" is related
>to the biological (!) level. This is probably the reason for the
>misunderstanding. Biology is the wrong word for "zoology." I do
not know
>who created these words and why the original concept of "bios"
was
>"zoologized"!
>Second remark: at the moment when a human population starts making (oral)
>reflections on who has the power to disseminate (accept, deny...) messages
>we have to do with a human (information) society. I do not know if this is
>strictly speaking "a moment" in the history of mankind and I do
not know
>how this informational 'effect' came about. What we call (moral)
>information rules started then. Ethics came (probably) later, and much
>later, of course, if we conceive it as "science of morals."
>
>kind regards
>
>Rafael
>
>Prof. Dr. Rafael Capurro
>Hochschule der Medien (HdM) University of Applied Sciences, Wolframstr.
>32, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu Mar 9 15:18:05 2006
