[Fis] Five Momenta. A First Preferred Itinerary

Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es
Tue Oct 27 14:37:26 CET 2015


Dear Joseph and Colleagues,

Thanks for the further comment. The relationships between the Five 
Momenta are always occurring in the background, as witnessed by those 
dense citation maps fashionable today, but have not been organized yet 
along the relatively strange sequence proposed. As you say, it would be 
good to discuss other alternatives. From my part,  a strong emphasis 
should be put, I think, in the separation between Momenta and 
"Instrumenta", quite convenient along most of the itinerary. Given that 
within Instrumenta there would be included quite strategic items from 
physics, computer science, info theory, logics, etc. (see below in the 
mesg previous to Joseph's) the point becomes rather contentious. To 
reinforce it in the form of a potent Latin dictum:  /Instrumenta numquam 
sunt momenta.

/It militates against the most frequent practice in our medium, starting 
usually in some particular physico-theoretical item and ascending 
towards successive generalizations. Alternatively, the itinerary 
suggests a "new tao", a new way to organize our info foundations 
reminiscent of the collegian, multidisciplinary way that metrical 
standards were developed during the past three centuries (Robert P. 
Crease, 2011). We are dealing with information science foundations, and 
creation of new "standards", an enterprise where in spite of their 
enormous scientific-technological importance, contents of the 
Instrumenta are only useful tools helping to better explore and 
elaborate the different portions and interrelationshisps of the Momenta.

If the above is right, even rather partially, we have been following the 
wrong strategy decade after decade...

About what disciplines are (to Loet) the terms I wrongly reproduced --it 
should be: "communities of inquirers... under an economy of research"--  
were taken from C.H. Peirce. I think they are a very adequate 
characterization, beyond the metaphor. But of course, any 
characterization of the disciplinary  branching phenomena will fail in 
one or another respect.

best--Pedro


Joseph Brenner wrote:
> Dear Pedro and Colleagues,
>
> Pedro's note has brought out more clearly to me the concept of an
> 'Itinerary' as a path between Momenta. I for one would be willing to 
> accept
> the discipline that comments should address relations and movement 
> between
> Momenta in an AGREED UPON SEQUENCE. The one in Pedro's note is 
> certainly a
> valid option, and perhaps we should try to list just one or two others to
> choose from. I think the term Pedro uses of 'itinerary elements' is
> consistent with this.
>
> This approach, if implemented, would have the advantage that I have often
> urged: each of us would have to study something he or she has not
> studied previously, or not in this context. There would be some unity in
> this resulting diversity, at least in the order of the discussion.
>
> The overlaps and interactions between Momenta other than the next one in
> line should not be neglected, but they can remain in the background.
> Comments welcome.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" 
>> <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
>> To: <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 2:14 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Five Momenta. Five Itineraries
>>
>>
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> .
>


-- 
-------------------------------------------------
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