SV: [Fis] Realism

Dear John and Loet

If you agree that the split between mind and the world is phoney and that both radical constructivism, eliminative materialism and dualism does not work. Neither does it to work with completely empty ontologies as Luhmann does. Then where are we? We need transdisciplinary philosophies that do not take mind and matter apart. This is why I try to combine Luhmann and Peirce. It is not easy, so I am open for all who wants to contribute to such a cybersemiotic project. Unfortunately it is very difficult to obtain money for such abstract projects presently.

          Cheers

                        Søren

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-bounces@listas.unizar.es] P� vegne af Loet Leydesdorff
Sendt: 5. juli 2006 19:59
Til: 'John Collier'; fis@listas.unizar.es
Emne: RE: [Fis] Realism

________________________________

        From: John Collier [mailto:collierj@ukzn.ac.za]
        Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 12:34 AM
        To: Loet Leydesdorff
        Subject: RE: [Fis] Realism
        
        
        I just want to make it clear that I was using a standard type of reductio argument in which I assumed something I don't believe in order to show it is unsound. Of course the split between mind and world is phoney. My aim was to show that assuming an inner and outer at least has a plausible alternative, and that the arguments in its favour are not sound. So I agree with those who reject the split. As a philosopher I am concerned with getting the logic right. Since there are deep seated prejudices in Modern though about a split between mind and body that keep resurfacing and confusing our epistemic situation, I thought it was worthwhile.
        
        Without information channels to the world, we cannot have information about it. The only such channels we have evidence for are via the body. That implies we must be careful in interpreting that information, but it does not imply that we don't have direct information about the world (social or otherwise). Are interpretations are fallible, but that does not give us warrant to think they are false, or that we have no such information.
        
        I think I agree with what Loet said below.
        
        John
        
        

Dear John,

Let me take my second shot this week. Of course, I cannot deny that we need the body, but which senses we need for reading "nature" depends very much on whether we consider "reality" as a construction in the discourse or as something we have unmediated access to because of our body. As someone voiced it to me in an offline email: '"Nature" is our conceptual tool for confronting The World.' John Casti used the concept of a tangential approach for studying "alternate realities"; Niklas Luhmann used the concept of "a reality that remains unknown" when we construct it.

I agree that it is a bit a sideline in this discussion.

With best wishes, Loet

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.9/382 - Release Date: 04-07-2006
-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.9/382 - Release Date: 04-07-2006
 
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis