phorum - AKADEMIA (архив) - knowledge must be rewritten

AKADEMIA (архив)

knowledge must be rewritten

Автор: Salvador Dali (---.sys.hokudai.ac.jp) Дата: 23-07-03 15:01 или "Долой категориальное мЫшление!" (in English)

psychocyberbioepistemics

Автор: Pirx (---.gov.ru) Дата: 24-07-03 11:22 Исключительно важная новопарадигмальная работа. Особенно мне понравилось: as if we know that God knew the difference between physics and chemistry an `interdisciplinary study' often consists of a group of disciplinarians holding hands in a ring for mutual comfort. The ostensible topic has slipped down the hole in the middle Will you then call this an Interdisciplinary study in the field of psychocyberbioepistemics? Do so only if you wish to insult the authors. Because their topic has not slipped down the hole in the middle. Therefore it is not an interdisciplinary study of the kind defined. It is not about analysis, but synthesis. It does not play the Game of the Categories. And it does not interrelate disciplines; it transcends them. If, because of my remarks about Kant, this seems to say that it annihilates them, then we are getting somewhere. the disciplinary system that I described above has got to be metasystemic, not merely Interdisciplinary What emerges in this book is not classifiable under the old categories suitable obeisance is paid to the hallowed categories, and no one cares if the answers slip down the hole in the middle knowledge must be rewritten [см. сальвадоров заголовок]. Autopoiesis belongs to the new library The `it' of rationalism is unrealistically schizophrenic Their [авторов - Pirx] `it' is notified precisely by its survival in a real world. You cannot find it by analysis, because its categories may all have changed since you last looked. There is no need to postulate a mystical something which ensures the preservation of identity despite appearances. The very continuation is `it'. At least, that is my understanding of the authors' thesis - and I note with some glee that this means that Bishop Berkeley got the precisely right argument precisely wrong. He contended that something not being observed goes out of existence. Autopoiesis says that something that exists may turn out to be unrecognizable when you next observe it. This brings us back to reality, for that is surely true. Nature is not about codes: we observers invent the codes in order to codify what nature is about scientists can no longer claim to be outside the social milieu within which they operate, invoking objectivity and disinterest any cohesive social institution is an autopoietic system because it survives, because its method of survival answers the autopoietic criteria; and because it may well change its entire appearance and its apparent purpose in the process Ну и, конечно, это: reputation grows, paranoia deepens. The number of papers increases exponentially, knowledge grows by infinitesimals, but understanding of the world actually recedes, because the world really is an interacting system. And since the world, in many of its aspects, is changing at an exponential rate, this kind of scholarship, rooted in the historical search of its own sanctified categories, is in large part unavailing to the needs of mankind. Козьма Прутков выражался на примерно эту тему куда грубее и спрямлённе, но зато понятнее народу: "Иного учёного смело уподоблю чугунному заду: сел на науку - ни обойти, ни объехать". Ресурс по автопоэзису: http://www.informatik.umu.se/~rwhit/AT.html И ещё: http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/t.quick/autopoiesis.html Весьма, между прочим, хотелось бы достать где-нть саму книгу.