[Fis] Locality & Five Momenta . . .

Loet Leydesdorff loet at leydesdorff.net
Fri Oct 30 21:40:43 CET 2015


Dear Mark, 

 

Whether there are five, four, or six momenta is an empirical issue. The crux is the specification of an operationalization. Otherwise, this remains pure speculation or what you call “ontology”. 

 

The Leiden Rankings, for example, distinguish six broad fields. Other categorizations remain possible. Of course, “fields” are not “momenta” J.

 

Best,

Loet

 

 

PS. I hope, Pedro, that this is the one that I could still do at the end of this week. L.

 

  _____  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

 <mailto:loet en leydesdorff.net> loet en leydesdorff.net ;  <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Honorary Professor,  <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/> SPRU, University of Sussex; 

Guest Professor  <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/> Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor,  <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html> ISTIC, Beijing;

Visiting Professor,  <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/> Birkbeck, University of London; 

 <http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYAAAAJ&hl=en

 

From: Fis [mailto:fis-bounces en listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Mark johnson
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 5:59 PM
To: fis en listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Locality & Five Momenta . . .

 

Dear FIS colleagues,

I'm curious about why the discussion about momenta matters. Does it matter because we believe it is important to determine the boundaries of specific discourses? Does that matter because we fear incoherence or confusion in our discussion if we don't demarcate boundaries? And yet the determination of discourse boundaries throws in more complexity into the debate: The coherent discourse we might hope for runs away from us as we try to grasp it.

What assumptions are we making in asserting momenta? What might it preclude? It seems to me that a moment-orientation carries a philosophical realist undertone (I'm familiar with it from Bhaskar's critical realism - this looks similar to his dialectical MELDA formulation - difficult to get into but insightful) There is an assumption about observers, and there is an assumption about natural necessity - what speculative realists call 'correlationism'. 

It seems that it matters more to academics than to ordinary people that deep ontological issues should be decided upon. Science, after all, depends on continual critical questioning about nature. Yet most sensible non-academic people might prefer to have a drink with friends than hurt their brains:  might they take a more pragmatic view that such matters of deep ontology are essentially undecidable? Or that their deep social (love) relationships really matter beyond everything else?

Before embarking on schematising momenta, perhaps it would be useful to think about what matters in this. Fundamentalism is an ever present risk for all academics. And additionally, information has a bearing on both matter and mattering after all...

Best wishes,

Mark

  _____  

From: Stanley N Salthe <mailto:ssalthe en binghamton.edu> 
Sent: ‎30/‎10/‎2015 13:24
To: Marcus Abundis <mailto:55mrcs en gmail.com> ; fis <mailto:fis en listas.unizar.es> 
Subject: Re: [Fis] Locality & Five Momenta . . .

Marcus wrote:

– I find myself thinking Five Momenta must represent five types of localities. I ask if that “smells right” to you. If so, I would think that “localizing hierarchies” would also be needed. For example, I see: 1) passive descriptions of Nature (aka natural philosophy, general science) as a different locality than, 2) anthropogenic or anthropocentric deeds (human semiotics+acts). One might even then add 3) biological processes mediating between 1 & 2.  All represent essentially different systems of meaning, no? But then, the Five (suggested) Momenta would be subordinate to 1, 2, and 3 in different ways, as I read things. Evaluation (cataloguing) of different localized traits seems to me as a possible useful path. Thoughts?

Marcus -- The momenta as given my Pedro:philosophy, biomolecular, multicellular, sociality, information do not make up a logical hierarchy, either subsumptive nor compositional. One possible, idealistic, reading is in subsumption:

{mind {microbiology {macrobiology {sociality {conceptualization}}}}}

STAN

 

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:49 AM, Marcus Abundis <55mrcs en gmail.com> wrote:

Loet, thanks for your note (Sat Oct 24) . . . an interesting twist on things I had not been considering.

 

John, re (Tue Oct 27) “rigorous connections using the entropy concept . . . most people don't understand entropy . . . So I haven't published”

– This interests me, as my own work heads in a general “entropic” direction.

 

Pedro, Steve & Stan – re various notes on Locality, Five Momenta and Hierarchy.

– I find myself thinking Five Momenta must represent five types of localities. I ask if that “smells right” to you. If so, I would think that “localizing hierarchies” would also be needed. For example, I see: 1) passive descriptions of Nature (aka natural philosophy, general science) as a different locality than, 2) anthropogenic or anthropocentric deeds (human semiotics+acts). One might even then add 3) biological processes mediating between 1 & 2.  All represent essentially different systems of meaning, no? But then, the Five (suggested) Momenta would be subordinate to 1, 2, and 3 in different ways, as I read things. Evaluation (cataloguing) of different localized traits seems to me as a possible useful path. Thoughts?

 

Re Chatin – an interesting article, to be sure, but for the reasons Joesph points out (and more) I agree with his posted thoughts.

 

Finally, in following the posted notes, I find this “discussion about discussion“ instructive.

	
	
	


_______________________________________________
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/20151030/e9a04f40/attachment.html>


More information about the Fis mailing list