Caro Johnson Cari Tutti, il 3 agosto ho inviato un messaggio in-centrato sulla inter-soggettività e il 2 ottobre un messaggio in-centrato sulla necessità di adottare il paradigma della musica o della poesia per comprendere quello che non si arriva a conoscere mediante la sola matematica, per quanto la funzione d'onda di Riemann sia una matematica onnicomprensiva. Naturalmente, il mio interesse per questi argomenti è motivato dalla mia "Nuova economia", scienza mediatrice o ancella di tutte le altre scienze.Tenete conto, se credete. Saluti. Francesco Rizzo.
2015-10-17 19:39 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson <[email protected]>: > Dear Loet, Joseph and Fis colleagues, > > Some thoughts: > > Pascal: "the heart has its reasons [the constraints of the body] which the > reason cannot perceive [because it is abstract]" and yet... we do come to > know the reasons of the heart - we know them long before we know reason. In > language as Joseph says "Less is more" precisely, in my experience at > least, because ambiguities reveal the reasons of the heart. Poetic language > lifts the veil of everyday language to expose the raw, embodied, uncodified > constraints which underpin it. Music is more powerful still (Alfred Schutz > wrote about this wonderfully) > > Can we fashion a description of how this works with existing theory? (I > don't believe we should surrender the territory to psychologists!) > > Parsons's idea of 'double-contingency' of communication presents an > interaction between ego and alter where communication emerges through > selections of meaning and utterance of each party. Schutz, whose theory of > intersubjectivity was important for Parsons (they had an significant and > difficult correspondence about these matters which is well-documented in > Richard Grathoff's "The Theory of Social Action: The Correspondence of > Alfred Schutz and Talcott Parsons") found Parsons's model too > functionalist. Parsons and Schutz have a different understanding of how > people 'tune-in' to one another: I see Parsons's model as effectively > 'digital': a set of multi-level interacting selections; Schutz's concept is > more 'analogue', involving sharing a sense of 'inner time' between people. > I prefer to think of this as a shared constraint. > > Loet's redescription of double-contingency in terms of mutual redundancies > loosens the determinism in both Parsons and Luhmann (who followed him). I > think this is important, and opens a space for reconsidering Schutz's > understanding of how 'tuning-in' might work. > > It's best to start with 'selection' (of utterance, meaning and > understanding in Luhmann). Shannon selections are constrained by redundancy > as we know, so to turn the spotlight on the redundancies rather than what > is selected allows us to differentiate the intersubjective communication > between two people talking face-to-face as one of higher mutual > constraint/redundancy than the intersubjective situation of writing an > email or a listserve post to Fis. Locality makes a difference in increasing > mutual constraint. > > Returning to Pascal, my body constrains my thoughts in ways which cannot > be abstractly modelled, and yet I can apprehend my own constraints and > those of others, whilst not necessarily being able to articulate them in > language. I could however make music, wave my arms around, pull an angry > face, or cry. Isn't inference of constraints by observing such behaviour > essential to communication? How could double contingency work were we not > able to grasp and physically feel what constrains the other? Babies > wouldn't survive otherwise! > > Just to extend the speculation a bit further, we should ask about the > process of knowledge construction itself in the light of mutual redundancy. > Since Hume, many believe that the agreement of scientists in the light of > event regularities is a factor in the development of knowledge. What do > those scientists 'tune into' when they do this? In what way might an > empirical event regularity be a mutual constraint? How are physical > constraints separable from personal, biological or psychological > constraints? > > Might apparently 'woolly' (but, IMO, valuable) sociomaterial accounts of > science be reframed as analytical accounts of interacting constraints? > > just some thoughts... > > Mark > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Loet Leydesdorff <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Dear Marcus, Mark, Bob, and colleagues, >> >> >> >> My ambition was a bit more modest: the paper does not contain a theory of >> meaning or a theory of everything. It is an attempt to solve a problem in >> the relation between sociology (i.c. Luhmann) focusing on meaning >> processing (and autopoiesis) and (Shannon-type) information theory. Luhmann >> left this problem behind by defining information as a selection, while in >> my opinion entropy is a measure of diversity and therefore variation. I was >> very happy to find the clues in Weaver’s contributions; Katherine Hayles >> has signaled this previously. >> >> >> >> Another author important in the background is Herbert Simon who specified >> the model of vertical differentiation (1973), but without having Maturana & >> Varela’s theory of autopoiesis for specification of the dynamics. I agree >> with Luhmann that one has to incorporate ideas from Husserl about horizons >> of meaning and Parsons’ symbolically generalize media as structuring these >> horizons for understanding the differentia specifica of the social as >> non-biological. >> >> >> >> Mark more or less answers his own questions, don’t you? The constraints >> of the body provide the contingency. The options are not given, but >> constructed and need thus to be perceived, either by individuals or at the >> organizational (that is, social) level. The contingency also positions (as >> different from others) with whom we can then entertain “double >> contingencies” as the basis for generating variation in the communication. >> How this works and feeds back on the persons involved seems to me the >> subject of other disciplines like psychology and neurology. The subject of >> study is then no longer (or no longer exclusively) *res cogitans*. >> >> >> >> For example, if a deaf person is provided with a cochlear implant, s/he >> may enter other domains of perception and be able to provide other >> contributions to the communication. The double contingencies between >> him/her and others can be expected to change. >> >> >> >> Bob and his colleagues define information (2008; p. 28) as “natural >> selection assembling the very constraints on the release of energy that >> then constitutes work and the propagation of organization.” This may have >> meaning in a biological framework, in which selection is considered >> “natural” resulting in organization(s). In the cultural domain, >> organization (of meaning) remains constructed and contingent; selection is >> never “natural”, but based on codified expectations. The codes steer the >> system from above. Differently from biological and engineered systems, this >> next-order level does not have to be slower than the systems level (Simon). >> Expectations can proliferate intersubjectively at higher speeds than we can >> follow. For example, we have to catch up with the literature. Stock >> exchanges operate faster than local markets because of the more >> sophisticated codes that mediate the financial exchanges. >> >> >> >> Maturana (1978, at p. 56) introduced the biologist as super-observer who >> does not participate in the biological phenomena under study, but >> constructs them: “Thus, talking human beings dwell in two >> *non-intersecting* phenomenal domains.” (italic added). Systems which >> operate exclusively in terms of expectations and anticipations of future >> states cannot be found in nature; they can only be considered reflexively. >> They allow us to de- and reconstruct in terms of improving the models, and >> thus sometimes find new options for technological intervention. >> Paradoxically, biology as a science is itself part of this cultural domain. >> For example, we have access to our body only in terms of perceptions (that >> are steered by expectations) and at the other end by knowledge-based >> interventions. >> >> >> >> This is my second posting for this week. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Loet >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Loet Leydesdorff >> >> *Professor Emeritus,* University of Amsterdam >> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) >> >> [email protected] ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ >> Honorary Professor, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of >> Sussex; >> >> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>, >> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, >> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing; >> >> Visiting Professor, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of >> London; >> >> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en >> >> >> >> *From:* Fis [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Marcus >> Abundis >> *Sent:* Thursday, October 15, 2015 7:11 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* [Fis] Shannon-Weavers' Levels A, B, C. >> >> >> >> Hey Mark, >> >> Sorry if I confused things by commenting on Bateson AND THEN >> Shannon-Weaver. In my mind those were two different matters, and did not >> merit my calling them out as such. >> >> >> >> In general . . . >> >> I too never saw Shanon-Weaver's Levels A, B, C as complete. In fact, >> I thought that portrayal as barely (oddly) half-hearted, in contrast to the >> allusion to a needed "theory of meaning." Still, I will dig into the work >> Loet and Bob reference . . . and see if I can find some personal >> satisfaction. >> >> >> >> ALSO, I found myself wondering if I should somehow try to tie >> Steven's sense of locality in with the notion of Levels A, B, C. Perhaps >> they are not specific enough in order to do so – not sure. >> >> >> >> *Marcus Abundis* >> >> about.me/marcus.abundis >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fis mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >> >> > > > -- > Dr. Mark William Johnson > Associate, > Leeds University Business School > Visiting Professor > Far Eastern Federal University, Russia > Phone: 07786 064505 > Email: [email protected] > Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com > > _______________________________________________ > Fis mailing list > [email protected] > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list [email protected] http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
