> Dear Professor Sheets-Johnstone, > It would be best if we keep our discussion to the contents of our letters > rather than assume that we each have read all of the other’s work. > In my case I was banned from this forum for two weeks for too many mailings. > Right now I am at a conference and I have not counted if I am over the limit > for this week. > I will comment in text below on your letter. > Best, > Lou Kauffman > >> On Apr 30, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Maxine Sheets-Johnstone <m...@uoregon.edu> >> wrote: >> >> To FIS colleagues, >> >> First, an open-to-all response to Lou Kaufmann: >> >> Thank you for your lengthy tutorial—some time back--but I wonder and am >> genuinely puzzled given the “phenomenology-life sciences theme” why none >> of the articles that I referenced were read and a response generated at least >> in part on the basis of that reading in conjunction with your own work. >> >> Is there some reason why they were not taken up, especially perhaps the >> article >> identified as being a critique of Godels’s incompleteness theorem from a >> phenomenological perspective? I would think that you and perhaps FIS persons >> generally would feel particularly inquisitive about that article. I would >> think >> too that people in FIS would be particularly inquisitive about the reference >> to >> Biological Cybernetics. Viewpoints that differ from one’s own are by some >> thought >> a waste of time, but for my part, I think they rightly broaden a discussion, >> which >> is not to say that entrenched or deeply held views are not solidly based, >> much less >> wrong, but that they have the possibility of being amplified through a >> consideration >> of the same topic from a different perspective. > > I for one, would appreciate your concise summary of your critique of Goedel. >> >> For example: Language did not arise deus ex machina, and it certainly did >> not arise >> in the form of graphs or writing, but in the form of sounding. > > Yes! And Goedelian work depends crucially on formalized written language. > Even mathematicians who formalize much less realize that Goedel does not > apply to their work as they create new language. (I for one am in this camp.) > >> Awareness of oneself >> as a sound-maker is basic to what we identify as a ‘verbal language’. >> Moreover this >> awareness and the verbal language itself are both foundationally a matter of >> both >> movment and hearing. A recognition of this fact of life would seem to me to >> be of >> interest, even primordial interest, to anyone concerned with >> ‘SELF-REFERENCE', its >> essential nature and substantive origins. > > Thus self-reference is essential in the stability of our voice. >> >> With respect to ‘substantive origins’, does it not behoove us to inquire as >> to the genesis >> of a particular capacity rather than take for granted that ‘this is the way >> things are and >> have always been’?. > > Indeed! And it is essential to anyone would engages in design or invention. > >> For example, and as pointed out elsewhere, the traditional conception >> of language being composed of arbitrary elements—-hence “symbols”--cannot be >> assumed with >> either epistemological or scientific impunity. Until the origin of verbal >> language is accounted >> for by reconstructing a particular lifeworld, there is no way of >> understanding how arbitrary >> sounds could come to be made . . . let alone serve as carriers of assigned >> meaning. >> What is essential is first that arbitrary sounds be distinguished from >> non-arbitrary sounds, >> and second, that a paradigm of signification exist. Further, no creature can >> speak a language >> for which its body is unprepared. In other words, a certain sensory-kinetic >> body is essential >> to the advent of verbal language. In short, in the beginning, thinking moved >> along analogical >> lines rather than symbolic ones, hence along the lines of iconicity rather >> than along arbitrary >> lines. > > Yes! And this is utterly the case for anyone who hopes to do creative > mathematics. It is not a body of symbols fixed in stone. > For many of us, geometry and topology is a key to getting back to the senses. > And then again, we have other issues. For example the behaviour of polarizing > material moves toward > quantum experience and the logic of that experience is not Boolean but > quantum. We live in domains of extended bodily experience. > > I should also say that if we look at our actual experiences in using and > learning to use “symbols” such as learning again and again about writing and > the underlying creativity of that, we find that this ‘form drawing’ is as > rich a domain for phenomenology as is auditory speech and indeed linked with > deeply. One of the reasons I speak of Laws of Form is because in continually > learning that, one is thrown again and again into examining the act of > drawing and thereby creating a symbol system where each symbol (perhaps a > circle drawn with a stick in a tide-flattend stretch of sand) is felt as a > creation of a world in the process of making a distinction. > >> See the extensive writings of linguistic anthropologist Mary LeCron Foster >> and >> Sheets-Johnstone’s The Roots of Thinking, Chapter 6, "On the Origin of >> Language." Foster's >> finely documented analyses show that the meaning of the original sound >> elements of language >> was the analogue of their articulatory gestures. Similarly, in my own >> analysis, I start not with >> symbols or symbolic thought but at the beginning, namely, with a >> sensory-kinetic analysis of the >> arbitrary and the non-arbitrary. >> >> Husserl wrote that "each free act [i.e., an act involving reason] has its >> comet’s tail of Nature.” >> In effect, living meanings are, from a phenomenological perspective, >> historically complex phenomena. >> They have a natural history that, in its fullest sense, is bound not both >> ontogenetically >> and phylogenetically. Like living forms, living meanings hold—-and have >> held—-possibilities >> of further development, which is to say that they have evolved over time and >> that investigations >> of their origin and historical development tell us something fundamental >> about life in general and >> human life, including individual human lives, in particular. WITH RESPECT TO >> ORIGINS AND HISTORICALLY >> COMPLEX PHENOMENA, consider the following examples: >> >> Information is commonly language-dependent whereas meaning is not. >> We come into the world moving; we are precisely not stillborn. >> We humans all learn our bodies and learn to move ourselves. >> Movement forms the I that moves before the I that moves forms movement. >> Infants are not pre-linguistic; language is post-kinetic. >> Nonlinguistic corporeal concepts ground fundamental verbal concepts. >> >> >> To all FIS colleagues re Alex Hankey's presentation: >> >> I thought at first that we might be talking past each other because it was >> my understanding >> that this 4-part discussion was about phenomenology and the life sciences. >> What this means to >> me is that we conjoin real-life, real-time first-person experience, thus >> methodologically >> anchored phenomenological analyses, with real-life-real-time third-person >> experience, thus >> methodologically anchored empirical analyses. With this last conversation >> between Rafael and >> Alex, the terrain seems to be shifting precisely toward this ground. With >> respect to that >> conversation, I would like first to note my accord with their critique of >> Heidegger's >> metaphysical view that animals are "poor-in-world." In an article published >> at the end of >> last year, I give a detailed critical analysis of that metaphysical view in >> conjunction >> with a detailed critical analysis of Heidegger's own metaphysical >> shortcoming, namely, his >> being, among other things, "poor-in-body." See "The Enigma of >> Being-toward-Death," Journal of >> Speculative Philosophy,2015 24/4: 547-576. >> >> I recommend Aristotle (again) to FIS colleagues: >> >> "Every realm of nature is marvellous. . . .[W]e should venture on the study >> of every kind >> of animal without distaste; for each and all will reveal to us something >> natural and >> something beautiful." >> "If any person thinks the examination of the rest of the animal kingdom an >> unworthy task, >> he must hold in like disesteem the study of man." >> >> Aristotle wrote four astoundingly perceptive books on animals. The above >> quotes are from >> his book Parts of Animals. Of Aristotle, Darwin in fact wrote, "Linnaeus and >> Cuvier have been >> my two gods, though in very different ways, but they were mere school-boys >> to old Aristotle." >> >> With respect to consciousness,may I refer you to a thoroughly documented >> article titled >> "Consciousness: A Natural History" that first appeared in the Journal of >> Consciousness Studies >> (1998) and that both critically and constructively addresses the question of >> 'how consciousness arises >> in matter'. Documentation is based on corporeal matters of fact from >> vertebrates to invertebrates >> and includes consideration of bacteria. The article was later included in >> The Corporeal Turn: An >> Interdisciplinary Reader and in The Primacy of Movement. >> >> What I term "phenomenologically-informed" studies of "the bodies we are not" >> requires acute >> observations to begin with, observations untethered to theories and beliefs >> about X, and then, >> finely detailed descriptions of those observations. Just such untethered >> observations and >> meticulous descriptions are the cornerstone of any life science. One is not >> out there trying to >> make others as you want them to be, but attempting to know them as they are. >> The task is precisely >> a challenge since it is a matter of achieving knowledge about living bodies >> that are different from, >> yet evolutionarily connected to, your living body. Jane Goodall's years of >> dedicated study set >> the original gold standard, so to speak, for such research, the foundations >> of "good life science." >> As I earlier wrote (and documented by way of a publication), descriptive >> foundations undergird >> phenomenological analyses, studies in evolutionary biology, and ecological >> literature. >> >> Cheers, >> Maxine >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Fis mailing list >> Fis@listas.unizar.es >> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
