[Fis] Five Momenta. Five Itineraries

Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
Fri Oct 23 14:14:36 CEST 2015


Dear FIS colleagues,

Thanks to all for the valuable insights. Responding briefly:

To Joseph: perhaps your points, although interesting, are not truly an 
itinerary. For instance, WuKun and Lupasco belong to the First Momentum 
(philos.). I agree that they can be adequate first steps (but there 
might be some others, such as Merleau Ponty, Ortega y Gasset, etc.). 
Once some temporary philo basis is attained, one has to visit --I 
think--the neurodynamic counterpart of those tenets (Momentum 3, neuro). 
>From there, a complex evo-devo panorama opens (visiting Momentum 2). 
Then it would be high time to return to M1, to consolidate the basis 
within an adequate heuristic 
"neuro-biologic-ethologic.cognitive-philosophic" approach to human 
prosocial capabilities, language included. Time for visiting M5 
(infoeconomics of social complexity, development of human history). From 
there, to M6 (contemporary info revolution, problems of our time). Back 
to M1, proposing an overall new way of thinking, plus quite many further 
movements of refinement and deeper analysis...

To Stan: if hierarchy helps to move into the previous multidisciplinary 
entanglement fine, otherwise it is a useless item to be kept into the 
lean mental "backpack" needed for this itinerary...

To Loet and Marcus: let us agree that disciplines are based on 
"communities of inquiry" that follow strict laws of "intellectual 
economy". Our limited capabilities force us to establish disciplinary 
specialization, and that's good, but a healthy knowledge system would 
also establish quite many "vertical" multidisciplines integrating the 
"horizontal" disciplines that apply simultaneously into concrete 
subjects (as happens in eg, medicine, engineering, anthrolpology, etc.).

To Steven and Soeren, Francesco, and all: Should'nt we distinguish the 
above itinerary elements (actually smallish parts from a number of 
disciples and subdisciplines) from the "instrumental" fields of 
knowledge that can be used "on tap" but quite often are used "on top"? I 
mean, classical and new Info theories, von Neumann theories (automata, 
machines, games), Turing and computational approaches, symmetry studies, 
entropy studies, quantum information, physical information, mathematical 
optimization procedures, etc. should not occupy the leading seat in this 
trip. To insist, they are instrumental just to help, strictly kept under 
command, along the different elaboration stages of the itinerary.

In the extent to which a similar scheme would be valid intelectually, 
would it be feasible too?  "If we were rich" a system of scientific 
committees could be created, seriously working during several years, at 
the style of the serious international cooperative work that have lead 
to the International System of Measurement Standards. So important was 
and has been the standardization of measurements, and we take it for 
granted. Curiously, it has an essential informational content regarding 
the "social brain"... Anyhow, only an important university could take 
charge of this genuine FIS itinerary. Alternatively, "if we were Linus", 
a Infopedia could organize the whole voluntary work... but how could we 
find our Linus?

Best wishes to all,

--Pedro


Marcus Abundis wrote:
> Perdo  – awesome post, great synthesis, thanks! Still, I do not share 
> your (apparent?) skepticism on an eventual happy result – although 
> said result is certainly not guaranteed.
>
> Hi Loet,
>
> First, thank you for your excellent post (Thu Oct 15 14:38:54) as it 
> offered the insight I craved.
>
> > . . . "unity of science" principles are outdated. At issue is to 
> specify how the sciences
> and specialties are different; in which respects and why? <
>
> If I take your meaning correctly (not sure) . . . While I agree 
> notions of some "facile unity" should NOT be allowed to (solely) 
> capture our collective imaginations, is it not possible to seek unity 
> and difference at that same time? One view being "objective 
> perspective" and another being a "meta perspective?" It seems to me 
> Bateson was on this track with "A Necessary Unity" and "a difference 
> that makes . . . "  Or perhaps there is some even-more-basic issue I 
> miss here . . . 
>
> In my view, shifts in perspective (sometimes subtle) can afford shifts 
> in insight, while also threatening apparent ambiguity. Or in the words 
> of F. Scott Fitzgerald "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the 
> ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still 
> retain the ability to function." My apologies if I simply misinterpret 
> your post . . . 
>
> If I may say without meaning offense, some recent posts seem to head 
> into a more "wooly" direction . . . that I confess to feeling some 
> kinship with. Particularly with comments on creativity, ambiguity, and 
> the tao. I have been watching closely, but also feel unsure of how or 
> if I should engage – in the context of this group. I am not sure how 
> productive that direction might (or might not) prove to be.
>
> My thoughts . . . 
>
> Marcus


-- 
-------------------------------------------------
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.iacs at aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------



More information about the Fis mailing list