Replying to Pedro's query below, we can have:
{physical / chemical affordances {biological behaviors {cultural norms
{social guidance {personal past learnings {{{...{continuing process of
individuation}}}}...}}}}}. Some of us would place ethics somewhere between
social guidance and personal past learnings. An interesting question in
this scheme is 'where is transcendence?' The problem is that there is
added, with each integrative level, further constraints. At present I am
considering that, if we allocate the same energies at each level, then the
remaining degrees of freedom in the higher levels will benefit from having
stronger embodiment than would have been possible in the lower levels. That
is to say that, e.g., behaviors which could only be weakly supported in,
say, the biological level, become more possible to be manifested in, say,
the social level.
STAN
>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
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sat May 6 21:22:19 2006
