Dear FIS colleagues,
The question recently raised by Luis, but also in a different way by Karl,
Stan and others, is a tough one. How do our formal "disciplinary"
approaches fare when confronting the "global" reality of social life? My
point is that most of knowledge impinging on social life matters is of
informal, implicit, practical, experiential nature. How can one gain access
to cognitive "stocks" of such volatile nature? Only by living, by
socializing, by a direct hands-on participation... Each new generation has
to find its own way, to co-create its own socialization path. No moral or
ethical progress then!!! (contrarily to the advancement of other areas of
knowledge). Obviously, learning machines or techno environments cannot
substitute for a socialization process --a side note for "prophets" of the
computational.
By the way, in those nice categorizations by Stan --it isn't logically
awkward that the subject tries to be both subject and observer at the same
time? If it is so, the categorization process goes amok with social
openness of relations and language open-endedness, I would put. Karl's
logic is very strict, provided one remains strictly within the same set of
reference. Anyhow, it is a very intriguing discussion.
best
Pedro
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Thu May 4 12:53:10 2006
