Caro Pedro e Cari Tutti, credo di potere affermare, da economista e senza offesa per nessuno, che la biologia è la scienza più fantastica che esista. Dai fondamenti biologici della conoscenza (Maturana e Varela) dipendono gli atteggiamenti comportamentali ricorsivi e descritti semanticamente, quindi il linguaggio (lingua e parole), la cultura, la relazionalità sociale, l'indispensabile etica dell'amore o amore dell'etica. Cioè tutta la vita umana. Quindi, seppure con la cautela e la raffinatezza degli artisti, più che degli scienziati, non mi preoccuperei tanto di riempire di significato il "bio della semiotica". Naturalmente e culturalmente so che questo nostro twittare o comunicare tarzaniano può creare qualche problema, inclusivo e esclusivo, ma il dibattito o la discussione risulta utile, efficace ed efficiente. Il che non è cosa da poco, grazie anche al prestigio e allo spessore scientifico di molti di Voi. Grazie ancora. Un abbraccio. Francesco Rizzo.
2015-10-27 14:37 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan <[email protected]>: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list [email protected] http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
