Supplement: I think there is so much more to discuss, esp. about the concept of culture: Is culture merely tradition and a homeostatic system of unquestioned habits, or may it also be a culture of culture criticism and innovation, like a culture of habit-revising and habit-breaking? Or would this not be "culture" anymore, but something else, an emancipation from culture? And so on. Anyway, "culture" is merely the produce of an observation, just secondness, but not something containing thirdness essentialities such as values or laws. Btw, evolution has not stopped with the evolution of nervous systems. Causa efficiens is like proto-symbolic (force, laws... . To say natural laws are conventional, would suggest a polytheistic idea of gods having had a meeting, haha. So proto). Needs are indexical, id say, and wishes iconical. Simple nervous animals iconize. In their evolution there comes indexicality (like pheromons smelling, pointing, yelling) and symbolicity (like language) again. So I see individuation (evolution of individuals out of the universe) like a wave: symbolic(1), indexical(1), iconical(1), indexical(2), symbolical(2), and so on. Indexical(3) and symbolical(3) would mean, that individuality is handed over to a supersystem (like the internet), that integrates us, strips our individuality from us, and organizes us (makes us organs and no-more-organisms). In our own human interest, we must avoid this. It would be natural, but not good for us. In our civilized convenience-swing we have forgotten, that "natural" does not automatically mean "good", but may and often does mean "hostile". Nature in ancient times was justifiedly regarded as mostly hostile (sabre-teeth-tigers, snakes, locusts, diseases, famines...). Now, as nature appears in the form of technology, we dont recognize it as nature, but it is, and it is pure nature untamed, though phenomenologically completely different from the common-conceptual (green) nature we know and have tamed.
Stephen, Edwina, list,
I agree, that the term "operationally closed" is too much suggesting an objectivity, because "operation" sounds like something objective: An operation is mostly the same operation, seen from any perspective.
So, with my own terms, i rather say "causally closed", and therefore, additionally to effect causation and final causation, I propose a secular kind of example cause (causa exemplaris).
Causa efficiens I see as force reason, as effect causes are forced by natural laws. Regarding causa efficiens, no system is causally closed.
Causa finalis I see as need reason, applying to organisms. Organisms have needs, and the system border for them and this causally closedness is the skin or the cell membrane of an organism.
Causa exemplaris (secular) I see as wish reason or volation reason, applying to organisms with a nervous system, and any wish is causally contained within the nervous system, so there is causal closedness too.
With social systems, I think, it is so, that they have an intention of becoming organism-like, or even human-like. Luhmann speaks of intentional systems. This intention, I think, is the reason life has emerged and evolved, as it more or less applies to any CAS, the more complex it is, the more, and the more complex (like humans) the agents it relies on are, the more too.
So the emergence of fundamentalist religions, rigid ideologies, mafias, and so on, is a natural thing, and the goal of systems theory imho would be to show this danger, and so to help prevent it.
So, politically I see value in the dogma, that a social system should be kept as trivial (non-complex) and transparent as possible, for not being able to develop causal closedness (systems´ own needs and wishes). This dogma is in accord with democratic achievements like separation of powers, civil and human rights, freedom of speech, press, religion..., mobility (travel, work, and habitation freedom...). This dogma stands in opposition against right-wing people-think (volkskoerper), compulsory communism, and excessive (intransparent) dataism.
Best, Helmut
29. November 2018 um 22:02 Uhr
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
Von: "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
EDWINA >"Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of fundamentalism in religion."
Yes, as per my reply to Helmut, Luhmann's "operationally closed" perspective seems to be an extension of the objectivist paradigm. Fundamentalist religion, man-made-in-god's-image, Darwinism, human exceptionalism, etc, all make assumptions about objective truth where reality plays out independently of the observer, and I think that this is the same trap that Luhmann's interpretation falls into. Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' memetics theory.
This is a perspective where human behavior is regarded merely as an impartial medium for the transmission of cultural communications... a very odd position I must say. They're failing to recognize a most important point... the relationship between human behavior and culture... the "knowing how to be", imitation and pragmatism.
sj
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 7:55 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9287] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
I think this is an important distinction.
Do societies function by ideology or by interactional relations with their environment and others?
Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of fundamentalism in religion. This is where " the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it" that Stephen refers to.
Cultural anthropology believes in the determinism of the cultural narrative.
However, I think that a society, as a CAS [complex adaptive system] operates as an interactional system - and that includes its operating narrative. Granted - it can take generations for a cultural narrative to change - but - it does.
Edwina
On Thu 29/11/18 4:19 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:
Dear members,
In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with
others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and
autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing
out:
1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED:
The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally
caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as
"... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from
their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems'
operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for
communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however,
that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic
theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of
communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as
operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to
Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human
communicators."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann
Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed
culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently
of the humans engaging it.
2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT:
This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and
the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards
an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents
making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably
as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role.
In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that
pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt,
Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent.
Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration.
DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS
What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over
to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including
agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the
potential of the semiotic paradigm.
The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by
incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement
addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this
regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to
focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised
of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices
from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement
deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an
outline:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6
3
By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more compelling
position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first
cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its
experiences into its being, its unity.
WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR?
There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement,
and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing correlations
between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is only
one mechanism that might explain these correlations - DNA entanglement.
So what's the holdup? There can only be one thing. Woo. Professionals
terrified of having their valuable work assigned the woo label won't dare
utter the words "DNA entanglement" in polite company. It is unfortunate that
in this era of rampaging political correctness, with people being unpersoned
for holding unapproved opinions, we are policing ourselves into silence. As
I am independent of Academia, though, I have nothing to lose, and so I'm so
I'm going to say it loud and proud:
DNA entanglement. It's a thing.
Regards,
Stephen Jarosek
no woo
REFERENCES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR DNA ENTANGLEMENT:
Apostolou, T.; Kintzios, S. Cell-to-Cell Communication: Evidence of
Near-Instantaneous Distant, Non-Chemical Communication between Neuronal
(Human SK-N-SH Neuroblastoma) Cells by Using a Novel Bioelectric Biosensor
(JCS Volume 25, Numbers 9-10, 2018, pp. 62-74(13))
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/00000025/f0020009/art
00002
Crew, B. (2018). This is the first detailed footage of DNA replication, and
it wasn't what we expected. Sciencealert.com:
https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected
Greentechnique. (2011, January 15). Cleve Backster - Primary Perception
(beginning at 344 seconds):
https://youtu.be/V7V6D33HGt8?t=5m44s
Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A. (2004).
Non-local correlations between separated neural networks (E. Donkor, A.
Pirick, & H. Brandt, Eds.). Quantum Information and Computation (Proceedings
of SPIE), 5436(II), 107-117.
http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.540785
Yes, as per my reply to Helmut, Luhmann's "operationally closed" perspective seems to be an extension of the objectivist paradigm. Fundamentalist religion, man-made-in-god's-image, Darwinism, human exceptionalism, etc, all make assumptions about objective truth where reality plays out independently of the observer, and I think that this is the same trap that Luhmann's interpretation falls into. Reminds me of Richard Dawkins' memetics theory.
This is a perspective where human behavior is regarded merely as an impartial medium for the transmission of cultural communications... a very odd position I must say. They're failing to recognize a most important point... the relationship between human behavior and culture... the "knowing how to be", imitation and pragmatism.
sj
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 7:55 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Stephen Jarosek
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9287] Systems theory, DNA entanglement, agents and semiosis
I think this is an important distinction.
Do societies function by ideology or by interactional relations with their environment and others?
Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of fundamentalism in religion. This is where " the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it" that Stephen refers to.
Cultural anthropology believes in the determinism of the cultural narrative.
However, I think that a society, as a CAS [complex adaptive system] operates as an interactional system - and that includes its operating narrative. Granted - it can take generations for a cultural narrative to change - but - it does.
Edwina
On Thu 29/11/18 4:19 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent:
Dear members,
In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with
others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and
autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing
out:
1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED:
The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally
caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as
"... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from
their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems'
operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for
communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however,
that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic
theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of
communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems as
operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to
Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human
communicators."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann
Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed
culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently
of the humans engaging it.
2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT:
This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and
the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards
an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents
making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents inextricably
as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role.
In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that
pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt,
Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent.
Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration.
DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS
What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over
to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including
agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the
potential of the semiotic paradigm.
The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by
incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement
addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this
regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to
focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised
of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices
from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement
deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an
outline:
http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6
3
By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more compelling
position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first
cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its
experiences into its being, its unity.
WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR?
There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement,
and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing correlations
between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is only
one mechanism that might explain these correlations - DNA entanglement.
So what's the holdup? There can only be one thing. Woo. Professionals
terrified of having their valuable work assigned the woo label won't dare
utter the words "DNA entanglement" in polite company. It is unfortunate that
in this era of rampaging political correctness, with people being unpersoned
for holding unapproved opinions, we are policing ourselves into silence. As
I am independent of Academia, though, I have nothing to lose, and so I'm so
I'm going to say it loud and proud:
DNA entanglement. It's a thing.
Regards,
Stephen Jarosek
no woo
REFERENCES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR DNA ENTANGLEMENT:
Apostolou, T.; Kintzios, S. Cell-to-Cell Communication: Evidence of
Near-Instantaneous Distant, Non-Chemical Communication between Neuronal
(Human SK-N-SH Neuroblastoma) Cells by Using a Novel Bioelectric Biosensor
(JCS Volume 25, Numbers 9-10, 2018, pp. 62-74(13))
https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/00000025/f0020009/art
00002
Crew, B. (2018). This is the first detailed footage of DNA replication, and
it wasn't what we expected. Sciencealert.com:
https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected
Greentechnique. (2011, January 15). Cleve Backster - Primary Perception
(beginning at 344 seconds):
https://youtu.be/V7V6D33HGt8?t=5m44s
Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A. (2004).
Non-local correlations between separated neural networks (E. Donkor, A.
Pirick, & H. Brandt, Eds.). Quantum Information and Computation (Proceedings
of SPIE), 5436(II), 107-117.
http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.540785
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
