THANK YOU Søren
very well and I am fully with you, except I do not get what "embodied" means
to you!
I wonder if you meanwhile (after last Fuschl) had a chance to check out
Herbert Stachowiak and his "Systematic Neo-Pragmatism" from the 1980ies and
his GENERAL MODEL THEORY from 1965 ! ?
http://www.cafeweltgeist.org/ewoc_slideshows/benking/sld024.htm
and
/sld023.htm
With Stachowiak you find a lot of Peirce and his Firstness and Secondness in
Original and Collected / Invited works. Maybe wothwhile checking out before
re-inventing the wheel.
What I am aiming at his how do we model and embody in order to share and
discuss fidelity and shared multi-perspectivism.
well you have seen earlier posting on this
terms:
http://benking.de/systems/encyclopedia/encyclopedia-entries-benking.htm#_Toc87362172
and 0479 COGNITIVE PANORAMA 1) - 2) 1, 0484 COGNITIVE SPACES 1)
I just wonder if you can follow me so we can discuss "wholeness or holism"
in a concrete, systematic, multi-sign, multi-mode and multi-modal AND ALSO
"IMMERSIVE" - PARTICIAPTORY - COMMUNICATIVE approach.
This we do with youth - pathfidners since some time. See the WORLD HOUSE,
not just Weltanschaung...:
http://www.cafeweltgeist.org/ewoc_slideshows/benking/sld011.htm
But this not in some equations and theories only, but hands on, at least for
SURVEY (overview) KNOWLEDGE, to share "common frames of references" as a
prerequisite to any "TOE" - which typically doesn't even check out its
baseline first.
Best
Heiner
> Dear All
>
> I am really sorry for not having had the time to participate in this
> discussion that is so central to my work. Allow me to point out that my
> use
> of Peirce's philosophy is a way to solve the externalist-internalist
> problem, which Peirce does with his triadic philosophy and ontology that
> introduces the pure feeling in Firstness and see it as something internal
> to
> matter as it manifests in Secondness and turning into dynamic stabilities
> in
> Thirdness.(My Peirce interpretation seem here to differ from John's). My
> paper in the first issue of the electronic journal of TripleC
> (http://triplec.uti.at/home.php) try to explain this
discussion and why I
> do
> not think that the objective information processing paradigm, cybernetics
> and systems theory - not even in Luhmann's sophisticated version - can
> solve
> this problem. This is why I have semiotized Luhmann (in the electronic
> http://www.unizar.es/sociocybernetics/Journal/dentro.html
Journal of
> Sociocybernetics V.3 ,N. 2). Therefore I with Wolfgang Hofkirchner and
> Christian Fuchs believe that we have to start our ideas of Consilience
> with
> embodied, semiotic, communicative, conscious human systems in social
> praxis
> and co-operation (cognition, communication and co-operation) in a
> historical
> and evolutionary frame work with a theory of self-organization and
> emergence.( We just finished the long version of our report from the
group
> work conference in Fuschl this year and will soon put it up at the FIS
> home
> page to have your feedback, and we will probably touch on these results
in
> the Paris conference this summer. Standard and general system science
with
> information science in it does do the trick in itself. You have to add an
> internalist point of view also (I use this concept here different from
> Koichiro as I think of the world from within our mind and life world).
> This
> is possible through Peirce's semiotics that is also phenomenological. We
> have to start in the middle of the human social life world where
knowledge
> is created and later cultivated to science. All the critical social
> studies
> of science shows us that it is very difficult to get behind that social
> prerequisite for science and get to a truth of a world beyond; be it the
> social reality, the real nature, the pure consciousness or the core of
> life
> and body hood. As Bruno Latour point out, we produce quasi-objects of
> knowledge and technology that are true and functioning always under
> special
> network, cognitive and technological conditions. Thus to evaluate our
> knowledge and the possibility of transdisciplinary common frames of
> understanding and knowledge building we always have to reflect on it both
> >from a social, natural, living and first person conscious or
> phenomenological point of view if we want to avoid the positivistic
> reductionist conception of the unity of knowledge with physics as the
> model
> science. A view that Wilson and researchers like Dawkins and Dennett have
> only moved a little away from by a more refined version of evolution
based
> on selfish genes.
>
> Full text papers can also be found on
> http://www.flec.kvl.dk/personalprofile.asp?id=sbr&p=engelsk
>
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es
[mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es] P�
> vegne af John Collier
> Sendt: 2. december 2004 23:06
> Til: Stanley N. Salthe; fis@listas.unizar.es
> Emne: RE: [Fis] Consilience: Writing on the Clouds
>
> At 05:07 PM 12/2/2004, Stanley N. Salthe wrote:
>
> >Pedro referred to:
> >
> > > a new view uniting the God's view needed for the intracloud
phenomena
> > >(analytical philosophy, theoretical >structures and
developments) with
> the
> > >terrestrial processes of ascent and descent,
> >
> > >the whole intellective limitations that surround our actions and
> > >perceptions (not our idealized
> > >concepts)
> >
> > >operations which we can perform without thinking about them.
> >
> > >Some of the essence of information belongs to the boundaries
with which
> we
> > >have to surround it.
> >
> > >the social problem of knowledge
> >
> >It seems to me he is calling for some bridge between externalist
> discourses
> >(e.g., traditional natural science, analytical philosophy) and
> internalist
> >ones (e.g., Goethe's botany, existentialism, endophysics, etc.) . At
> >present I see these as incommensrable viewpoints, which could
complement
> >each other. Of course, there is no reason not to be concerned about
how
> >this complementation might be accomplished.
>
> Yeh, that is what brought me into philosophy (my first undergrad paper
was
> on the topic). I started studying information theory in 1971 because I
> thought it was the key to the problem. I still think so. The biggest
> obstacle I see at this point is that proponents of both sides seem to
feel
> that they are giving something up by any unification (e.g., the
> externalists think that they have surrendered to the mystics, and the
> internalists think that they have surrendered to objectivists, or
> something
> like that). The bits I had a chance to see of this discussion were quite
> interesting, and some of the intemperate and almost religious assumption
> of
> subjective or objective perspectives made my blood boil. I hope people
> will
> learn to curb their dogma on this forum. At least try to be as neutral as
> you can so some agreement is possible. You'd think some of you were
taking
> lessons from George Bush. I wrote my doctoral dissertation on
> incommensurability, and I argued that it was a pragmatic problem, not a
> logical one. One solves it by finding a larger perspective. So, away with
> narrow minded subjective constructivism and narrow minded objective
> empiricism! They are both wrong, wrong, wrong.
>
> John, who will not respond to any remarks on my tirade above.
>
>
> ----------
> "The most obvious lesson from Sodom is that when you're attacked by
an
> angry mob, the holy thing to do is to offer up your virgin
daughters." --
> Columnist Nicholas Kristof, The New York Times, Oct. 23.
> Professor John Collier
> collierj@ukzn.ac.za
> Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South
> Africa
> T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292 F: +27 (31) 260 3031
> http://www.nu.ac.za/undphil/collier/index.html
> http://www.kli.ac.at/research.html?personal/collier
> Cybernetics & Human Knowing http://www.imprint-academic.com/C&HK
> Subscriptions sandra@imprint.co.uk
--
Heiner Benking
http://www.thetransitioner.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Heiner_Benking
LongVersion (partly German):
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Benking
GMX ProMail mit bestem Virenschutz http://www.gmx.net/de/go/mail
+++ Empfehlung der Redaktion +++ Internet Professionell 10/04 +++
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Fri Dec 3 06:58:57 2004
