1) I ask that we please have this posted to the 313 FAQ, if it ever was created, for any future such unfortunate events. I think Otto would have just earned visiting professor status @ the Wayne State institute for electronic music if such a think existed.
2) I hope everyone saw Otto's note ">PS: Note 2) Yes, I am taking the piss." 3) I will be staring a new email list for likeminded thinkers: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tristan ========================================== PHONOPSIA<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Lounge/5102/index.htm "FrogboyMCI" on AOL Instant Messenger New Album, "Québécois", online now. -----Original Message----- From: Otto Koppius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: 313 <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 4:52 PM Subject: [313] The epistemology of techno >Re: what is the definition of techno? > >One has to ask first, what is a definition? A definition is a label >attached to a phenomena and it does not convey any attributes other than >those relevant for the phenomenon under examination to have >discriminative validity (I choose not to engage in the raging parsimony >debate of definitions and axioms here). In order for a definition to >have meaning, it has to be universally agreed upon by the relevant >actors. For these actors, such a definition has utilitarian value. This >value consists for instance of reduced communicational ambiguities by >creating a body of knowledge that can subsequently be used for further >advancements and refinements of the original concept (see also note 1). > >Note that a definition cannot be true or false, for any potential >falsification process would consist entirely of (non-)acceptance by the >relevant actors and thus cannot be considered a falsification process in >the strict Popperian sense, since for all practical purposes, the >definition acceptance process makes definitions more akin to axioms, >which by definition cannot be falsified. > >The acceptance process by the relevant actors is rarely explicit and can >be best understood as an implicitly socially constructed process between >the relevant actors. However, quite often it is not *all* relevant >actors whose actions are consequential in this process, but only a >nucleolus of actors with a high network centrality whose actions >constitute milestones in the definitional acceptance process. Yet rarely >are such actions effective immediately, given their dependency on the >receiving parties' attitude and reaction, thus rendering any decision >process by the nucleolic actors regarding their intended actions in this >process boundedly rational. > >The highly amorphous nature of this definitional acceptance process >makes tracing and explicitizing it a problem of an intractible nature. >Hence, the social constructivist paradigm argues that there does not >exist a universal definition of any phenomenon, since the social >circumstances are not constant, yet they are crucial to the definition >acceptance process. This implies that definitions are potentially >subject to variations over time, thus contradicting the single most >essential aspect of a definition: its universal consistency through time >and space. > >When taken to the extreme, this paradigm implies that as many >definitions can exist as there are actors and even the staunchest social >constructivists have realized that this is an untenable position from a >realistic point of view. To avoid this, they have utilized the concept >of the Anthropic Principle, which in its original form can be stated as: >"A phenomenon is the way it is, because we are there to observe it in >that way". This establishes an explicit, irrevocable causal link between >the phenomenon, the observer and the observation method, a link that is >an anathema to the positivistic paradigm (note the interesting parallel >with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the controversy that arose >when it was first proposed). > >An important corollary of the Anthropic Principle is that, because >observer and observation method matter, once an observer starts to >describe the phenomenon under observation, there is inherently a loss of >information about the phenomenon because a different observer, using a >different observation method, would describe the phenomenon differently. >Note that this does not render any such descriptive definition invalid >from a practical standpoint, given the socially constructed process of >defining. However, it does mean that no single observer (and by >consequence, any finite number of observers) can theoretically arrive at >a complete definition, since the process of defining inherently involves >a descriptive reduction, thus rendering any definition inexorably >incomplete. > >If we apply this to the definition of 'techno', it means that although a >common understanding of 'techno' has emerged (in other words: the >definition acceptance process has converged), articulating that >definition would immediately destroy the richness of the implicit >definition of 'techno', thus invalidating the question "What is >techno?". > >QED > >Otto >PS: Note 1) A more malicious view would be that definitions are often >used to obfuscate reality, thus creating a halo of perceived expertise >around those who use those definitions, even though their expertise is >based solely on linguistical dexterity and not on a conceptual >understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. Obviously I do not >subscribe to such a view. >PS: Note 2) Yes, I am taking the piss. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
