[ The Form / Process Dipole & Enaction: Toward a New Rational Spiritual Path ] 🧵🪡
"I believe that the fundamental commitment of Euro Western civilization and thinking is to explain away movement by something that doesn’t move" - Thomas Nail.
👉
For me, as an enactive and embodied thinker, all static formalizations (including this one) are to be understood more deeply as "enacted" by a socio-historical (history AND theories of epistemology) and organic (sensorimotor schemes) meta-stabilization process.
This process is a doubly recursive negative regulatory feedback ("groundless ground"/ouroboros) between what appear to us initially and analytically as two orthogonal/independant dimensions (the bidimenTionality of conceptual dipoles, antinomies, para-doxes).
It is this socio-historical important scientific distinction that technology try to confuse non-ethically through a material synthesis, confusing the 3PP and the 1PP (empirical transjectivity). Hence also the actual normative epistemological trend toward "perspectival realism".
And so we call this "doubly recursive negative regulatory feedback" usually and phenomenologically (1PP) "our mind" or "the blinding proximity of reality", as it is well known that the fish is the last to understand water.
If you want to be more politically correct, be socially recognized, and relate it in a reductionist fashion to our usual common sense (conventional reality) you can also call it "undetermined processual materialism".
And if you want to project it on a transcendental religious onto-metaphysics, call it "God". It's up to you.
What does a pragmatic (experi-mental & experiential) and *transformative* philosophy, science AND technique, beginning with concrete and applicable phenomenology may look like? Scybernethics?
This rational and always temporally formal enacted synthesis, as including a sub-linguistic know-how experiential dimension, can only be realized from a first person "view from within" phenomenological perspective,
opening a new rational path between science, technique and spirituality.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
[ Distinction²: Scientific Normative Explanation is NOT Heuristic Understanding ]
The explanation/understanding conceptual dipole, as all c-dipoles, is *asymetrical* for the scientific observer-actor (phenomenological hysteresis process).
The normativity of a description is toward the general and uninformed public, so called "lay man", while the heuristic is toward informed peers only for stimulating meaning-making and creativity and which are aware of the complex context and subtle meaning conveyed.
2/3
Another common confusion in a technoscience facing its "saturation of disciplinary/ontological domains", trying to bridge non-ethically the mind-body problem, & at the same time unable to renew itself epistemologically toward an extended and second order 1P-3P epistemology.
3/3
[ Scientific Explanation & Machines: the Technicality of Language ] 🧵
A strict "scientific explanation", as (first order/classical) logically canonical reason could be understand as a *normative linguistic machine*, trying to drive the reader/auditor from a common point of view
to a shift in his understanding, and so perception. It is a linear linguistic expression grounded on past causes or teleological future to be intelligible in common.
Language is a technique, it is transjective and bridge the Self/Other and Self-Object distinctions. And so, as all Technique, it is an ambiguous pharmakon which can poison or cure depending on *the dosage*.
In my "brain" (conceptual map), I have an enacted category named "Conceptualization as negation of a whole". This "whole" is the linguistic phenomenological/cognitive domain.
This seems in phase with the Buddhist "Apoha theory".
"A top-down approach uses the tools of logic, such as negation operators, to work from linguistic meaning and the generality of concepts down to real particulars, which lack any generality or shared natures, while avoiding any commitment to real universals."
- Evan Thompson.
While, as already explained, the bottom-up approach is in my case (philosophical creation of concepts, cf. Deleuze, in-tuitions, technophilosophy), inspired by knowing the PDP/ANN quasi-analogical way of functioning (parallel distributed processing).
[ Scybernethics & Tekhne: Simondon, Relational Realism and the Limit of Formalism/Ontology ] 🧵🪡
After being driven by the enactive framework, I have converged (through Stiegler) toward Simondon. But his technical, and so transjective conception confusing the 1PP and the 3PP,
seems to lead to a relational realism ground I have de-constructed in my enactive 1P-{1P-3P} "toward a meshwork of groundless grounds" polarized (self)understanding.
His conception is clearly useful to better understand the/our technicity (a current blind spot of Science),
but needs for me, ethically, to be also faced with an analytical 1P-3P epistemic logic (phenomenology + sciences of cognition), so that to produce a *meaningful and transformative tension* of (self)intelligibility (👇img 1).
In my scybernethics enacted approach (enacted representation AND methodology), PDP/ANN models where the inspiration (Cf. 3 👇) of how to think in a parallel and distributed way the emergent bottom-up inductive, but also creative,
embodied dynamics of conceptualization (generality).
It was crossed, through suspension of judgement leading to their semantical embodiement (and not only abstract intellection), with the top-down and normative scientific cultural representation and its key differentials,
like the conceptual dipoles and the different interdisciplinary perspectives on a same object (Cf. 4).
A short critique of the more and more generalized confusing and blurring technoscientific mentality, as an excessive empirical polarization of the scientific episteme, leading to a dangerous rhetorical, normative & operational/instrumental *sophistry*.
Aristotle, wake up, they have gone mad (again), but this time because you succeed too much with your normative "excluded third", confusing institutional collective deontology and private ethics. And Descartes was a *philosopher*, not a scientist:
"Thus my intention here is not to teach the method that each person must follow to conduct his reason well, but only to show in what way I have tried to conduct mine."