[Fis] Five Momenta. A First Preferred Itinerary

Francesco Rizzo 13francesco.rizzo at gmail.com
Tue Oct 27 16:13:14 CET 2015


Caro Pedro e Cari Tutti,
credo di potere affermare, da economista e senza offesa per nessuno, che la
biologia è la scienza più fantastica che esista.  Dai fondamenti biologici
della  conoscenza (Maturana e Varela) dipendono gli atteggiamenti
comportamentali ricorsivi e descritti semanticamente, quindi il linguaggio
(lingua e parole), la cultura, la relazionalità sociale, l'indispensabile
etica dell'amore o amore  dell'etica. Cioè tutta la vita umana. Quindi,
seppure con la cautela e la raffinatezza degli artisti, più che degli
scienziati, non mi preoccuperei tanto di riempire di significato il "bio
della semiotica". Naturalmente e culturalmente so che questo nostro
twittare o comunicare tarzaniano può creare qualche problema, inclusivo e
esclusivo, ma il dibattito o la discussione risulta utile, efficace ed
efficiente. Il che non è cosa da poco, grazie anche al prestigio e allo
spessore scientifico di molti di Voi. Grazie ancora.
Un abbraccio.
Francesco Rizzo.

2015-10-27 14:37 GMT+01:00 Pedro C. Marijuan <pcmarijuan.iacs en aragon.es>:

> 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 en aragon.es>
>>> To: <fis en 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 en 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 en aragon.es
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20151027/fc1bb652/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list