[Fis] Una Teoría Sociológica de la Comunicación: La Autoorganización de la Sociedad Basada en el Conocimiento

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Una Teoría Sociológica de la Comunicación:
 
La Autoorganización de la Sociedad Basada en el Conocimiento

edited and translated by Gabriel Vélez Cuartas, Liliana Ramirez Ruiz, Javier
Torres Nafarrate, et al. México: Universidad Iberoamerica (ISBN
978-607-417-343-7). Now available at
http://enlinea.uia.mx/libreriavirtual//detalle.cfm?clave=CSP0232
 =LIBRO 

En esta obra, Leydesdorff retoma la teoría de la estructuración de Gidden,
la teoría de la acción comunicativa de Habermas y la propuesta de Luhmann de
la auto-organización de los sistemas sociales, y así, busca analizar si las
sociedades pueden, como propondría Luhmann, ser consideradas como
organizaciones autopoiéticas, es decir, si las sociedades son organizaciones
con la capacidad de crear sistemas auto-regulatorios para sí mismas. La
importancia de un análisis de esta naturaleza reside en que su aceptación
sería la contradicción directa a la tradición sociológica moderna, que
considera que la regulación social depende de la capacidad individual que
tiene cada sujeto de actuar en su mundo. Loet Leydesdorff, Doctor en
Sociología y profesor en el departamento de estudios de la comunicación en
la Universidad de Amsterdam, ha publicado textos de redes sociales,
filosofía de la ciencia, sociología de la innovación y cienciometría.

** apologies for cross-postings

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

  l...@leydesdorff.net ;
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Honorary Professor,   SPRU, University of
Sussex; 

Guest Professor   Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou;
Visiting Professor,   ISTIC,
Beijing;

Visiting Professor,   Birkbeck, University of London;


 
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en

 

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] SYMMETRY & _ On BioLogic

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear FIS Colleagues,

For my taste the ongoing conversation is running too fast. We have 
passed, via Louis, Plamen, and other colleagues, along essential themes 
on the relationship between life and formal approaches, perhaps too 
cavalierly.


I am still stuck with the problem of explanation in biology and the role 
of Darwinism as a supposed central theory of the biologic, motivated by 
the initial exchanges. The apparent centrality of natural selection when 
confronted with biomolecular, physiological, developmental, 
populational, and ecological arenas becomes often the overstretching of 
a paradigm (of not so brilliant performance in my opinion), and also the 
lack of alternative general frameworks to reflect more consistently on 
the knowns and unknowns of the whole biological complexity. The parallel 
with mechanics in physics could be illustrative--classical, statistical, 
fluid, quantum... what is finally "mechanics"? For Wilczek, a successful 
"culture".


More explanatory dimensions are needed in biology, and herein we have 
been commenting on topology, morphology, and other lateral points. 
Living systems have discovered and introjected so many laws of nature 
and emergent morpho-geometric constraints, that a whole signaling pack 
devoted to deal with mechanical force (mostly via cytoskeleton and 
adhesion molecules) has become essential for organismic development. 
Stress and adhesion dictate gene expression, powerfully. That some 
coding counterparts have to exist is OK, but the explanatory burden 
belongs to the very morpho-topological phenomena and to the functional 
tricks that realize it cellularly on the biomolecular and physiological 
scales. The same regarding the amazing emergences derived from the 
handling of electrical and electromagnetic fields.  A doctrinarism close 
to the sectarian takes the existence of the encoding --by natural 
selection, and what else?-- as the only significant point to reiterate, 
endlessly. In an equivalence with modern technology, would we talk about 
market competition as the only creative engine of inventions?


The sort of explanatory art needed (quite OK with Plamen's call and Dr. 
Pivar's exploration), would mean following the appropriate disciplinary 
tributaries, irrespective of their origins, and not only the officially 
established main course. In my view, we maintain explanatory styles of 
other epochs, with far less complicated systems of knowledge.


An interesting point, perhaps more concrete, would rely on the 
capability of the cellular "engine" to attain a quasi universal 
problem-solving capability. Whatever the problem at hand, the adequate 
mixing of positional, differentiating, and mecano-morphological 
capabilities of cells will produce adequate inventions. The ways and 
means to achieve those inventions is our explanatory problem. A little 
detail is why prokaryotes were unable to conquer morphology, while 
eukaryotes excelled. Was it because of the lack of cytoskeleton and the 
associated lack of mechano-topological mastery (or mainly for lacking 
DNA handling virtuosity)? More other expl. branches to the "river"?


Anyhow, excuse these torpid attempt to rekindle a discussion that for me 
is very important, yes, in informational matters.


best regards--Pedro

--
-
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
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis