Thanx Paul.
I care because although one of the critiques often levelled against Mat. is
the constructivist bias his work assumes. Yet in my (mis)readings of both
Mat & Var. they are writing about a unity that realizes its autopoietic
organization - not in a vacuum - but in a medium (i.e. other)that in a
second order coupling, the medium's autopoiesis is 'included' as components
in the unity's realization, and vice versa. Either I haven't been eating my
intellectual wheaties, or this sounds like Mat admitting to a world beyond
the languaging of the observer who draws the distinctions of
unity-with-environment.
Whaddyathinkthen?
Andrew
Vancouver,BC
(The Land of the becoming-police state)
>Andrew, there's the long answer and....
>phusis/physis chez heidy and humberto requires languaging humankind (dasein)
>to 'bring it forth'. However any autopoietic being that does not 'live in
>languaging' (another of humberto's great neologisms) doesn't make the grade.
>'It' has no dasein, has no 'world' and is 'unconscious' or rather
>non-conscious. Animals don't die they 'perish'(heidy), they don't 'suffer'
>(humberto)..etc. For h/m there is no non-linguistic, non-languaging
>subjectivity. 'Outside' of languaging there is no-thing. there can be no
>subjectivity without semiological mediation (sound familiar)? There is just
>a congruent sensory-motor coupling with a milieu.
>Are you familiar with Maturana's cosmology, particularly his 'Ontology of
>Observing'?
>Why do you care?
>Paul.
>P.s Maturana critiques heidy for attempting to preserve the objectivity of
>the being that is 'brought forth' by a distinction in languaging.
>
>However, for d/g, whitehead, Ruyer, Leibniz,....there is a 'non-human'
>non-discursive enunciation/subjectivity, being - or multiplicity of
>ontological consistencies if you prefer.
>>Paul wrote:
>>
>>>It will be the chilean biologist Maturana who will provide
>>>the neologism of autopoiesis. However Maturana's biological philosophy
>>>flounders on the rocks of Heidegger and James and Kant.
>>>
>>Please say more about how Maturana's theory 'flounders on the rocks of
>>Heidegger & James & Kant', especially since it was Heidegger who in
>>1954/1977;p293 wrote of physis as "the arising of something from out of
>>itself, ... a bringing forth, poiesis".
>>
>>Thanx.
>>Andrew
>>Vancouver, BC.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
------------------
I care because although one of the critiques often levelled against Mat. is
the constructivist bias his work assumes. Yet in my (mis)readings of both
Mat & Var. they are writing about a unity that realizes its autopoietic
organization - not in a vacuum - but in a medium (i.e. other)that in a
second order coupling, the medium's autopoiesis is 'included' as components
in the unity's realization, and vice versa. Either I haven't been eating my
intellectual wheaties, or this sounds like Mat admitting to a world beyond
the languaging of the observer who draws the distinctions of
unity-with-environment.
Whaddyathinkthen?
Andrew
Vancouver,BC
(The Land of the becoming-police state)
>Andrew, there's the long answer and....
>phusis/physis chez heidy and humberto requires languaging humankind (dasein)
>to 'bring it forth'. However any autopoietic being that does not 'live in
>languaging' (another of humberto's great neologisms) doesn't make the grade.
>'It' has no dasein, has no 'world' and is 'unconscious' or rather
>non-conscious. Animals don't die they 'perish'(heidy), they don't 'suffer'
>(humberto)..etc. For h/m there is no non-linguistic, non-languaging
>subjectivity. 'Outside' of languaging there is no-thing. there can be no
>subjectivity without semiological mediation (sound familiar)? There is just
>a congruent sensory-motor coupling with a milieu.
>Are you familiar with Maturana's cosmology, particularly his 'Ontology of
>Observing'?
>Why do you care?
>Paul.
>P.s Maturana critiques heidy for attempting to preserve the objectivity of
>the being that is 'brought forth' by a distinction in languaging.
>
>However, for d/g, whitehead, Ruyer, Leibniz,....there is a 'non-human'
>non-discursive enunciation/subjectivity, being - or multiplicity of
>ontological consistencies if you prefer.
>>Paul wrote:
>>
>>>It will be the chilean biologist Maturana who will provide
>>>the neologism of autopoiesis. However Maturana's biological philosophy
>>>flounders on the rocks of Heidegger and James and Kant.
>>>
>>Please say more about how Maturana's theory 'flounders on the rocks of
>>Heidegger & James & Kant', especially since it was Heidegger who in
>>1954/1977;p293 wrote of physis as "the arising of something from out of
>>itself, ... a bringing forth, poiesis".
>>
>>Thanx.
>>Andrew
>>Vancouver, BC.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
------------------