Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,I do not contribute much to FIS discussions, but always read them with interest. I found recent contributions from Soeren very disturbing. Actually, I feel insulted by them. I understand that the rules adopted by FIS require academic code of conduct. Personal atacks, or even argumenta ad personam directed at any member of the list are degrading discussion to the level beneath dignity of the academic discourse. I would like to propose that we stick to the old academic rule to ignore all contributions which are directed not against some views, opinions, statements or works, but against the person associated with them. Regards,MarcinMarcin J. Schroeder, Ph.D. Professor Akita International University Akita, Japan m...@aiu.ac.jp
From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:54:53 +0900To: Subject: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: SV: "The Travellers"]
(Herewith Soeren's response, again the server has stopped it (?) From my part, only saying that we are in polar opposites, so the difficulty --and interest-- of the exchanges. Anyone can interpret sentences in his own, but my intention was far from offending: knowledge exchanges are fun in themselves and should always be fun. OK, I suggest a future fis discussion session inviting some interesting semiotician --outside our circle-- so that a lively discussion might be maintained. best --Pedro) Original Message&nbs
p;Subject: SV: SV: [Fis] "The Travellers"Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:38:24 +0100From: Søren Brier To: Pedro C. Marijuan , fis@listas.unizar.es References: <207c3aeedf3347258b028dd5f67f0...@hcc-mbx-2.local.ukzn.ac.za> <201410270613.s9r6dbm7004...@ortiz.unizar.es> <5450ef85.2060...@aragon.es> <54523d16.4060...@aragon.es>Dear PedroThank you
for your answer. Reading it, I&
nbsp;am surprised that you are unable to see that you are the one starting this discussion with an arrogant tone. I certainly felt offended by your mail.Though I am originally a biologist I have come to teach philosophy of science interdisciplinary and do research in many different paradigms and learned to consciously reflect on paradigms and methodology and has had to live with the neglect of these aspect from people within classical educations and research traditions. But in Denmark it is now obligatory for all students to have
;a course in philosophy or theory of science.What I read out of you answer is, that you are so entranced in the received view of science (which I was originally educated in) that you do not consider yourself to be in any kind of paradigm or metaphysics and therefore do not have to make a conscious reflection and a comparison with the work in other paradigms, which is of cause an insult to us who have worked with these things for 30 years and who's work you seem to neglect. Neglecting is a muc
h more powerful weapon than critique in&
nbsp;the world of science - actually the ultimate one -and then you can top it off by suggesting to leave those paradigms that has not had your interest anyway and you therefore do not have the proper knowledge of.I wonder what the non-insulting meaning of your sentence: "Semiotics could be OK for the previous generation--something attuned to our scientific times is needed now." is for a biologist like me who has worked with semiotics for 25 years and being part of creating the association of biosemiotic studies, which now h
as it yearly conference, a journal and a book series with Springer?? A status that FIS has not achieved yet.I have known you for a long time and in that period you have shown no interest in semiotics or commented on any papers and books in biosemiotics or on the relation between information and what so ever. My own book "Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough" is now out in paperback and Kindle and as a Google book .It has taken me more than 20 years to get a reasonable understanding of&
nbsp;Peirce's semiotic philosophy and why and
how I think it offers a more comprehensive framework for transdisciplinary view of the natural, life, social and human sciences that is much more fruitful than info-computationalism. So I am a little impatient with people who discharge Peirce without having studying him properly. The same goes for Luhmann's systems theory. It is not unusual to see people discharge theoretical work they have not come to terms with and are therefore unable to deliver a fruitful critique of on the basis of their own conception of being in the received
view and therefore not having to bother with other views; which is pretty much my interpretation of your standing.It is of cause your right to choose your own outlook and peace be with that, but when you deem research you have not worked with deeply for many years - be it the theories of Peircean semiotics and information concept or Luhmann or Ethological theory of cognition - as obsolete, it is certainly insulting for those who has chosen to work with these theories and have publis
