Dear Loet, Bob, Joseph, and FIS colleagues, There is a classical problem in the dialog between natural science and the humanities, also occurring in the present exchanges (maybe in a different way). I may agree or disagree respect the constructs presented by Bob, or my own points, but most of that stuff is closer to well-accepted conceptualizations of different disciplines and the discursive element is framed within the bounds of self-discipline. In my case, when I presented the 11 points, most of them could have a concrete label: "signaling science", "motor-centered approach", "ecological psychology", "social brain hypothesis", etc. I think the result was not a potpourri, but a conceptual body from which a careful reading might obtain a cogent meaning, hopefully. However, most of Loet's text is discursive, with ample freedom of construction, and the parts associated to scientific conceptualizations do not become very relevant --in my opinion they provide a loan of apparent rigor. Besides the topic of discussion in his message is slightly twisted: the initial "communication" and "life" becomes "scientific communication" and "biology"... I do not want to be negative, rather pointing that there is a different communication strategy at work. Well, finally the respective rigor is in the eye of the beholder.
Also, there was an idea by Joseph that I want to continue, when he says: "...the purport of metabolism is change, not only burning carbon-hydrogen bonds. But perhaps we might all prefer "communicating is life; life is communicating"..." The "semantic metabolism" theme was in the background (just in case I reproduce his message below). Then, my suggestion: if most of our daily exchanges in social life occur for their own sake, just to continue with or to maintain our social bonds ahead (see Raquel's opening text), the parallelism takes an interesting turn. Most of semantic metabolism becomes the processing of our social bonds: degrading them, ascending them, interlinking them, slightly or deeply changing our inner mental structure of bonds. Dealing with chemical bonds is the playground for energetic metabolism; dealing with social bonds is the playground for semantic metabolism. In one case we use free energy when changing (filling in, depleting) the chemical bonds; in the other case we use communicative social information when similarly changing the social bonds. Every chemical reaction refers to the making and braking of bonds: could we similarly state (tongue in cheek) that every meaningful social interaction finally refers to the making and breaking of social bonds? This is my second, and final, message of the week. best ---Pedro On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Joseph Brenner <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch <mailto:joe.bren...@bluewin.ch>> wrote: Dear FISers, There is here an important idea which I think is worth a note. The two elements (I say) are in a dynamic relation and a logical relation, as the mind moves between them. Alternately one or the other is predominant (more actualized) Lupasco said: "experience is logic; logic is experience". Closer to home we have: "information is constraints and constraints are information" (Kauffman et al, 2008). The purport of metabolism is change, not only burning carbon-hydrogen bonds. But perhaps we might all prefer "communicating is life; life is communicating". Best, Joseph Loet Leydesdorff wrote: > > Dear Bob, > > Thank you so much for this paper (that I had seen before). I agree > with many of the things written here, but my intellectual orientation > is another one, namely one that does not consider biology, philosophy > of biology, or the definition of life as a fruitful starting point for > the analysis of cultural phenomena such as scientific communication. > > Discursive knowledge does not emerge as autonomous agency in molecular > processes, but at a next level in terms of exchanges among human > (reflexive!) agents. The interactions exhibit a non-linear dynamics of > expectations and meanings. Shannon-type information-theory excludes > this dynamics right from the beginning, but more recently we have > begun to understand more about the possible measurement of the options > generated in terms of redundancies. See for a recent summary and > introduction: Loet Leydesdorff, Inga Ivanova, and Mark Johnson, The > Communication of Expectations and Individual Understanding: Redundancy > as Reduction of Uncertainty, and the Processing of Meaning > <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2358791>. I take the liberty to attach this > draft. > > As you don’t wish to reduce the biological domain to the physical, we > don’t wish to reduce the cultural to the biological. The biological > offers organization and constraints, whereas the cultural offers > self-organization of the communication and new opportunities. This is > particularly important since in a knowledge-based economy, science and > technology-based innovations have become endogenous. The ideational > model in this case does the work. The model – shaped in discourses – > makes future states available in the present as new options that could > be realized and thus lift current constraints. > -- ------------------------------------------------- Pedro C. Marijuán Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA) Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X 50009 Zaragoza, Spain Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/ ------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
