Dear Heiner
No, I do not know Herbert Stachowiak and I could not find an English book
by him except the Unesco contribution.
To work towards consillience from a pragmatic and practical point of view is
also interesting. *What I think we have done is through theoretical analysis
to come back to pragmatism, but now in a reflected way underlining the
prerequisites for pragmatism, or rather as Peirce called pragmaticismen,
because he did not like what James did with his thoughts. He thought it was
too simplistic. Praxis, meaning and theoretical scientific reflection has to
inform each other in an ongoing process, which I guess is what you try to
make happen in different settings.
Venlig hilsen / Best wishes
Søren Brier
Copenhagen Business School , Management, Politics and Philosophy,
Bl�g�rdsgade 23B, DK-K�benhavn 2200 N.
Office-phone +45 3815 2208 Cell 28564282
Old home page with full text documents
http://www.flec.kvl.dk/personalprofile.asp?id=sbr&p=engelsk
Ed. in Chief of Cybernetics & Human Knowing : home page:
http://www.imprint-academic.com/C&HK
-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Heiner Benking [mailto:heiner_benking@gmx.net]
Sendt: 3. december 2004 06:58
Til: Søren Brier
Cc: collierj@ukzn.ac.za; fis@listas.unizar.es; CHARLES FRANCOIS
Emne: Re: SV: [Fis] Consilience: Writing on the Clouds
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#_Toc
87362172
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 10:16:23 2004
