Dear Joseph and Colleagues,
Thanks for the further comment. The relationships between the Five
Momenta are always occurring in the background, as witnessed by those
dense citation maps fashionable today, but have not been organized yet
along the relatively strange sequence proposed. As you say, it would be
good to discuss other alternatives. From my part, a strong emphasis
should be put, I think, in the separation between Momenta and
"Instrumenta", quite convenient along most of the itinerary. Given that
within Instrumenta there would be included quite strategic items from
physics, computer science, info theory, logics, etc. (see below in the
mesg previous to Joseph's) the point becomes rather contentious. To
reinforce it in the form of a potent Latin dictum: /Instrumenta numquam
sunt momenta.
/It militates against the most frequent practice in our medium, starting
usually in some particular physico-theoretical item and ascending
towards successive generalizations. Alternatively, the itinerary
suggests a "new tao", a new way to organize our info foundations
reminiscent of the collegian, multidisciplinary way that metrical
standards were developed during the past three centuries (Robert P.
Crease, 2011). We are dealing with information science foundations, and
creation of new "standards", an enterprise where in spite of their
enormous scientific-technological importance, contents of the
Instrumenta are only useful tools helping to better explore and
elaborate the different portions and interrelationshisps of the Momenta.
If the above is right, even rather partially, we have been following the
wrong strategy decade after decade...
About what disciplines are (to Loet) the terms I wrongly reproduced --it
should be: "communities of inquirers... under an economy of research"--
were taken from C.H. Peirce. I think they are a very adequate
characterization, beyond the metaphor. But of course, any
characterization of the disciplinary branching phenomena will fail in
one or another respect.
best--Pedro
Joseph Brenner wrote:
Dear Pedro and Colleagues,
Pedro's note has brought out more clearly to me the concept of an
'Itinerary' as a path between Momenta. I for one would be willing to
accept
the discipline that comments should address relations and movement
between
Momenta in an AGREED UPON SEQUENCE. The one in Pedro's note is
certainly a
valid option, and perhaps we should try to list just one or two others to
choose from. I think the term Pedro uses of 'itinerary elements' is
consistent with this.
This approach, if implemented, would have the advantage that I have often
urged: each of us would have to study something he or she has not
studied previously, or not in this context. There would be some unity in
this resulting diversity, at least in the order of the discussion.
The overlaps and interactions between Momenta other than the next one in
line should not be neglected, but they can remain in the background.
Comments welcome.
Best wishes,
Joseph
----- Original Message ----- From: "Pedro C. Marijuan"
<[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Five Momenta. Five Itineraries
Dear FIS colleagues,
Thanks to all for the valuable insights. Responding briefly:
To Joseph: perhaps your points, although interesting, are not truly
an itinerary. For instance, WuKun and Lupasco belong to the First
Momentum (philos.). I agree that they can be adequate first steps
(but there might be some others, such as Merleau Ponty, Ortega y
Gasset, etc.). Once some temporary philo basis is attained, one has
to visit --I think--the neurodynamic counterpart of those tenets
(Momentum 3, neuro). From there, a complex evo-devo panorama opens
(visiting Momentum 2). Then it would be high time to return to M1,
to consolidate the basis within an adequate heuristic
"neuro-biologic-ethologic.cognitive-philosophic" approach to human
prosocial capabilities, language included. Time for visiting M5
(infoeconomics of social complexity, development of human history).
From there, to M6 (contemporary info revolution, problems of our
time). Back to M1, proposing an overall new way of thinking, plus
quite many further movements of refinement and deeper analysis...
To Stan: if hierarchy helps to move into the previous
multidisciplinary entanglement fine, otherwise it is a useless item
to be kept into the lean mental "backpack" needed for this itinerary...
To Loet and Marcus: let us agree that disciplines are based on
"communities of inquiry" that follow strict laws of "intellectual
economy". Our limited capabilities force us to establish
disciplinary specialization, and that's good, but a healthy
knowledge system would also establish quite many "vertical"
multidisciplines integrating the "horizontal" disciplines that apply
simultaneously into concrete subjects (as happens in eg, medicine,
engineering, anthrolpology, etc.).
To Steven and Soeren, Francesco, and all: Should'nt we distinguish
the above itinerary elements (actually smallish parts from a number
of disciples and subdisciplines) from the "instrumental" fields of
knowledge that can be used "on tap" but quite often are used "on
top"? I mean, classical and new Info theories, von Neumann theories
(automata, machines, games), Turing and computational approaches,
symmetry studies, entropy studies, quantum information, physical
information, mathematical optimization procedures, etc. should not
occupy the leading seat in this trip. To insist, they are
instrumental just to help, strictly kept under command, along the
different elaboration stages of the itinerary.
In the extent to which a similar scheme would be valid
intelectually, would it be feasible too? "If we were rich" a system
of scientific committees could be created, seriously working during
several years, at the style of the serious international cooperative
work that have lead to the International System of Measurement
Standards. So important was and has been the standardization of
measurements, and we take it for granted. Curiously, it has an
essential informational content regarding the "social brain"...
Anyhow, only an important university could take charge of this
genuine FIS itinerary. Alternatively, "if we were Linus", a
Infopedia could organize the whole voluntary work... but how could
we find our Linus?
Best wishes to all,
--Pedro
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
.
--
-------------------------------------------------
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)
[email protected]
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
[email protected]
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
