Replying to Loet and Joseph:
Loet: I am not sure that you mean this with "actuality". (which seems an Aristotelian notion to me). S: I have been using 'Actuality' (and 'Reality') as proposed by: Roth G, Schwegler H (1990) Self-organization, emergent properties and the study of the world. In Krohn W, Kuppers G, Nowontny H (eds) Self-Organization: Portrait of a Scientific Revolution. Kluwer. Joseph: The first thing I would like, Stan, is that in your talking about MY notion of actuality, it is brought out that it is no longer the original concept elaborated by Aristotle, but that the (partial) actuality of the elements involved in a dynamic process is linked dynamically to their (partial) potentiality and *vice versa*. S: I include potentiality as part of Actuality. Actuality exists at many scales, and what is potential at, say, a large scale may be accompanied by actions already actualized at a smaller scales. Thus, if it takes one minute to complete an action at one scale (as viewed by an outside observer), and simultaneously an action is being made at a smaller scale that takes one second to complete, when that action is seen to be completed at the smaller scale, the larger scale action (as viewed by the outside observer) would still be happening/unfinished. Of course, there are no outside observers, but actions at all levels will depend in various upon what is happening at other levels. Then Stan, I hope you could reconsider your formulations, with none of which I can agree: 1. You set up a *distinguo* between reality and actuality, while failing to see that both Loet and I are indeed concerned with both. Speaking for myself, you should already see that I cannot have ignored the difference between actuality and reality since I say that reality is composed of actuality and potentiality. It is not a model of anything. S: I'm sorry to disagree. Your dialectical system is a logical social construct, and therefore a part of Realty (as per my take on Roth & Schwegler). Your system indeed* refers to* what I call 'Actuality' as an element in the theory (this Actuality is again a social construct). LIR is a part of reality, as is any logical, scientific theory but then what is the purpose of saying "It is a socially constructed tool for negotiating actuality". Is your work a 'socially constructed tool'? S: Yes indeed, it is. Our thinking is located within Western discourse, which is currently located within our capitalist system, and reflects concepts that are possible/feasible within that system -- even if the concepts are critical of it. You may contact some aspects of actuality with your tongue or foot, but not with a theory (as such). (These contacts would be biological constructs, by the way, and no more privileged than social constructs!). Finally, as we all struggle to understand one another, what, Stan, is the purport of the word 'negotiating' actuality? Negotiating for me means seeking advantage of some kind, more or less (usually less) fairly. There is a vicious ad for a financial broker you may have heard, which I cannot stand: "Life is a competition; negotiate well". S: 'Negotiating', as I use it here, refers to trying to do one's best to survive or succeed, involving also the use of versions of reality in order to do so. The import is that actuality is a challenging experience. (Your quote is indeed crass, and reflects the high status of Darwinian notions in our culture. I have a Critique of the Concept of Natural Selection in my web pages at http://www.nbi.dk/~natphil/salthe/index.html ) STAN
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
