[Fis] [Fwd: SV: SV: The Travellers]

2014-10-31 Thread Pedro C. Marijuan
(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 
Subject:SV: SV: [Fis] The Travellers
Date:   Thu, 30 Oct 2014 20:38:24 +0100
From:   Søren Brier sb@cbs.dk
To: 	Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis@listas.unizar.es 
fis@listas.unizar.es
References: 
207c3aeedf3347258b028dd5f67f0...@hcc-mbx-2.local.ukzn.ac.za 
201410270613.s9r6dbm7004...@ortiz.unizar.es 
CAEvKwyRr06Wg=fzkk+5Dq1Hf3z9=zrgb86dt06pr-43tv2t...@mail.gmail.com 
ca+nf4cx-m2aul891wg-qrm568tvnrjznneqk+pbcq+pbrry...@mail.gmail.com 
5450ef85.2060...@aragon.es 
d98697a7796aed4589385cf99329a76c05c66be...@exchange01.hhk.dk 
54523d16.4060...@aragon.es




Dear Pedro

Thank you for your answer. Reading it, I 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 much more 
powerful weapon than critique in 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 has 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 
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 published within them 
for more than 20 years against the dominating views, to proceed as if they have 
no standing what so ever worth mentioning and it is certainly not supportive 
for the fruitful research exchange that FIS is supposed to support.

So I responded to your arrogance with a comparable arrogance. 


But now I have given you a little phenomenological insight in my first person 
experience and my intersubjective hermeneutical horizon from a long life in 
inter- and transdisciplinary work going from physics, chemistry, biology to  
comparative psychology, information and library science, 

Re: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: SV: The Travellers]

2014-10-31 Thread MARCIN Schroeder
Dear Pedro and FIS Colleagues,I do not contribute much to FISdiscussions, but always read them with interest.I found recent contributions from Soeren very disturbing. Actually, I feel insulted by them.I understand that the rulesadopted by FIS require academic code of conduct. Personal atacks, or even argumenta ad personamdirected at any member of the list are degrading discussion to the level beneath dignity of the academic discourse.I would like to propose that westick tothe old academicrule to ignore all contributionswhich are directed not against some views, opinions, statements or works, but against the personassociated withthem.Regards,MarcinMarcinJ.Schroeder,Ph.D. Professor AkitaInternationalUniversity Akita,Japan m...@aiu.ac.jp

From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.esDate: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 21:54:53 +0900To: fis@listas.unizar.esSubject: [Fis] [Fwd: SV: SV: "The Travellers"]
(HerewithSoeren'sresponse,againtheserverhasstoppedit(?)Frommypart,onlysayingthatweareinpolaropposites,sothedifficulty--andinterest--oftheexchanges.Anyonecaninterpretsentencesinhisown,butmyintentionwasfarfromoffending:knowledgeexchangesarefuninthemselvesandshouldalwaysbefun.OK,Isuggestafuturefisdiscussionsessioninvitingsomeinterestingsemiotician--outsideourcircle--sothatalivelydiscussionmightbemaintained.best--Pedro)OriginalMessage
p;Subject:SV:SV:[Fis]"TheTravellers"Date:Thu,30Oct201420:38:24+0100From:SørenBriersb@cbs.dkTo:PedroC.Marijuanpcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es,fis@listas.unizar.esfis@listas.unizar.esReferences:207c3aeedf3347258b028dd5f67f0...@hcc-mbx-2.local.ukzn.ac.za201410270613.s9r6dbm7004...@ortiz.unizar.esCAEvKwyRr06Wg=fzkk+5Dq1Hf3z9=zrgb86dt06pr-43tv2t...@mail.gmail.comca+nf4cx-m2aul891wg-qrm568tvnrjznneqk+pbcq+pbrry...@mail.gmail.com5450ef85.2060...@aragon.esd98697a7796aed4589385cf99329a76c05c66be...@exchange01.hhk.dk54523d16.4060...@aragon.esDearPedroThankyou
foryouranswer.Readingit,I&
nbsp;amsurprisedthatyouareunabletoseethatyouaretheonestartingthisdiscussionwithanarroganttone.Icertainlyfeltoffendedbyyourmail.ThoughIamoriginallyabiologistIhavecometoteachphilosophyofscienceinterdisciplinaryanddoresearchinmanydifferentparadigmsandlearnedtoconsciouslyreflectonparadigmsandmethodologyandhashadtolivewiththeneglectoftheseaspectfrompeoplewithinclassicaleducationsandresearchtraditions.ButinDenmarkitisnowobligatoryforallstudentstohave
;acourseinphilosophyortheoryofscience.WhatIreadoutofyouansweris,thatyouaresoentrancedinthereceivedviewofscience(whichIwasoriginallyeducatedin)thatyoudonotconsideryourselftobeinanykindofparadigmormetaphysicsandthereforedonothavetomakeaconsciousreflectionandacomparisonwiththeworkinotherparadigms,whichisofcauseaninsulttouswhohaveworkedwiththesethingsfor30yearsandwho'sworkyouseemtoneglect.Neglectingisamuc
hmorepowerfulweaponthancritiquein&
nbsp;theworldofscience-actuallytheultimateone-andthenyoucantopitoffbysuggestingtoleavethoseparadigmsthathasnothadyourinterestanywayandyouthereforedonothavetheproperknowledgeof.Iwonderwhatthenon-insultingmeaningofyoursentence:"SemioticscouldbeOKforthepreviousgeneration--somethingattunedtoourscientifictimesisneedednow."isforabiologistlikemewhohasworkedwithsemioticsfor25yearsandbeingpartofcreatingtheassociationofbiosemioticstudies,whichnowh
asityearlyconference,ajournalandabookserieswithSpringer??AstatusthatFIShasnotachievedyet.Ihaveknownyouforalongtimeandinthatperiodyouhaveshownnointerestinsemioticsorcommentedonanypapersandbooksinbiosemioticsorontherelationbetweeninformationandwhatsoever.Myownbook"Cybersemiotics:Whyinformationisnotenough"isnowoutinpaperbackandKindleandasaGooglebook.Ithastakenmemorethan20yearstogetareasonableunderstandingof&
nbsp;Peirce'ssemioticphilosophyandwhyand
howIthinkitoffersamorecomprehensiveframeworkfortransdisciplinaryviewofthenatural,life,socialandhumansciencesthatismuchmorefruitfulthaninfo-computationalism.SoIamalittleimpatientwithpeoplewhodischargePeircewithouthavingstudyinghimproperly.ThesamegoesforLuhmann'ssystemstheory.Itisnotunusualtoseepeopledischargetheoreticalworktheyhavenotcometotermswithandarethereforeunabletodeliverafruitfulcritiqueofonthebasisoftheirownconceptionofbeinginthereceived
viewandthereforenothavingtobotherwithotherviews;whichisprettymuchmyinterpretationofyourstanding.Itisofcauseyourrighttochooseyourownoutlookandpeacebewiththat,butwhenyoudeemresearchyouhavenotworkedwithdeeplyformanyyears-beitthetheoriesofPeirceansemioticsandinformationconceptorLuhmannorEthologicaltheoryofcognition-asobsolete,itiscertainlyinsultingforthosewhohaschosentoworkwiththesetheoriesandhavepublishedwithinthemformorethan20
yearsagainstthedominatingviews,to&
nbsp;proceedasiftheyhavenostandingwhatsoeverworthmentioninganditiscertainlynotsupportiveforthefruitfulresearchexchangethatFISissupposedtosupport.SoIrespondedtoyourarrogancewithacomparablearrogance.ButnowIhavegivenyoualittlephenomenologicalinsightinmyfirstpersonexpe