 |
| M.C. Escher, Horsemen, 1946. |
After the first (the beginning of this blog) and the second (the transition from inorganic to the organic life levels), the third quantum leap concerns terms such as:
co-(n)science awareness experience god Self sacred sacrament aesthetics moral beauty truth existence art justice values
and their synonyms and opposites.
Each of these terms cannot be considered purely of description, neither of meta-description (description of descriptions), since they describe either the referenced object and the subject which is describing. They can be considered terms at the boundary between logical level 2 of meta-description and 3 of meta-meta-description and - as such - they are not objectively definable; at this level the only possible verbal description are tales, poems, stories, witnesses of experiences, parables, metaphors and, ultimately, silence.
The territory indicated by these terms is entirely modelled by the principle of subjectivity, a region where:
Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism, 1709
In the description process by a subject (the describer) of an object (the described) there are two types of relations (the description): the first - that commonly understood - of the description of the described by the describer, the second (since - generally - the object cannot describe the subject, unless it is another subject) the description of the subject which describes the object.
In this recursive process the subject the subject "shape" the described object exactly as the described object "shape" the describing subject.
The first process is the one commonly intended as "description": millions of texts, encyclopedic entries, videos, films etc. are its representation. It is to be noted that the description of a specific object may change, either because the subject changes, and because the interpretation of the object may be different. For example, the description of a diamond is very different if made by a solid-state physicist, a geologist, a gemologist, a jeweler or by the buyer, although the physical object is always the same. Also, the description depends on the state of consciousness of the subject: a subject in "normal" conditions, drunk or under the influence of drugs may give very different descriptions of the same object.
The "objective" description for excellence is the scientific one, based on the fact that, using the same method under the same conditions, different observers always obtain the same data; but, at the next level, the one of data interpretation to formulate a theory or to verify an hypothesis, the subjective component becomes evident - in fact in several fields different or opposite theories coexist based upon the same "objective" data. Furthermore, if till the knowledge domains level represented by physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, physiology and engineering the object of description has an its own physical materiality (but not its interpretation which - evidently- is purely mental), at next and nearby levels as cognitive sciences, sociology, psychology, anthropology and so on to end with philosophy, the object of the description is purely conceptual/mental and not physical, and often even the definition of what a certain discipline is and should describe is a matter of interpretation. The ultimate paradox occurs, naturally, when object and subject coincide, as in the case of the sciences of the mind, where entities like higher metal functions , cognition, consciousness, the "I" and the "self" are purely subjective.
The second process is referred to the fact that a description, generally, does not carry information or is neutral if it is not specified who is describing, and in which context. A relevant example are the descriptions, statements, interpretations, opinions, discussions, debates, surveys and so by the media, which give - generally minimally - information on facts and events and - in a greater way - information about themselves.
Through a description that a subject make of an object therefore one get information both on the describing subject as well on the described object, in a variable way between the two and linked to the description context.
As illustrated in the specific case of a cell, the description typology in addition to follow the hierarchy of systems and knowledge domains, also follows a map categorization according to the logical level at which description is made, with a transition between the two objective and subjective principles of description:
Similarly, the logical categorization may be divided between the "external" object and the "internal" subject, where the first may be divided in the hierarchical structure of knowledge domains:
At logical level 0 is placed the object or the subject of the description, the described, depending on whether the observation is turned externally or internally to the describer. At this level there are data and events processable by the scientific method, the activities-actions of the body-mind and the perceived data. This level lies entirely under the objectivity principle, and in western cultures, dominated by four centuries of science, is the one that commonly is intended as "reality".
At logical level 1 takes place the description of the described from a describing; as such it is represented by - literally - millions of books, papers, encyclopedic entries that in history have described the knowledge of the external and internal worlds. According to the subjectivity principle and the scientific method the specification "on the part of a describer" is obvious and redundant: if the description is valid, according to the scientific methods, then all the describers give the same description - but not necessarily the same interpretation -. This is the level typical of the scientific description of the "external world" in terms of organized data with meaning with theories, with terms like time, space, energy, form, structure, system, element, process, learning, evolution, local and global. Since postwar the tradition of first and second cybernetics in the field of general system theory, merged in today science of complexity, has noted that the term "on the part of a describer" is instead essential in the epistemology of scientific description, as already noted in quantum and relativistic physics. At this level, for the subjective "internal world", belong the structures of perception and the body-mind results of cerebral activities, like thoughts, reasonings, imaginations, emotions and feelings.
The logical level of meta-description is related to meta-models of complexity, as synergetic for physics, dissipative structures theory for chemistry, the SOP meta-model and the concept of autopoiesis for biology. Epistemology, ontology, ontogenesis, philogenesis, emergence, cognition, organization, Pattern which Connects and 2nd order cybernetics are meta-terms of description which belong to this territory, according to Bateson's statement that, when one talks of complex systems - as living entities and their aggregates with related emergent phenomena - we should "follow the example of the entities about which we are talking": "It follows that when we talk about living entities, statements ... should always be labeled by reference to some descriptive proposition ...". " ... we shall see later, that every descriptive proposition is to be characterized according to logical typing of subject, predicate, and context." Also the structure of perception, considered, for example, in its complexity of body-mind-emotions interaction, is referred at this level:
The logical level 3 of meta-meta-description describe the territory generically named of the consciousness, to which the previous introduced terms belong where the description describes itself and the describer.
The description modalities of this territory are well expressed by a Bateson's story:
There's a story which I have used before... A man wanted to know about mind, not in nature, but in his computer. He asked (surely in his more polished Fortran):
'Will you ever think like a human being?' The machine then analyzed its own computational habits. Finally, it printed its answer on a piece of paper, as such machines do. The man ran to get the answer and found, neatly typed, the words
The human consciousness and the selfconsciousness is one of the key emergent and self-referential phenomena, which integrates in a subjective way objective physical issues of matter, time, space, energy with awareness and the whole of life experience:
The guidelines of Global Dynamics Processes and Pattern that Connects will be continued based on the works and experiences of those, with extremely fear, have tried to travel and describe those essential territories to which - for the mere fact of living - we belong.
Besides, beyond logical level 3, a series of witnesses and experiences and of models coming from various traditions commonly categorized as "sacred" - mainly eastern - indicate further territories of experience and observation beyond consciousness, and - as a matter of fact - beyond language, where the duality subject/object becomes again unitary. The boundary between logical level 3 and higher is the one defined by propositions 6.5, 7 of Tractatus, which state that if a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered, and answered correctly, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. The witnesses of those who went forward and travelled these territories are in fact almost always expressed by silence; practices are instead indicated to reach and to know how to travel those territories, on the base that only a personal and individual experience may led to knowledge, inexpressible in words. In this, advanced western science practices and those of eastern inner knowledge are not so unlike, as noted by F. Capra:
The experiences witnessed about the knowledge of these territories definable as "beyond consciousness" indicate how even the principle of subjectivity is exceeded, entering in "worlds" of perception and experience not only unknown, but even unknowable, totally aliens.
Each of these terms cannot be considered purely of description, neither of meta-description (description of descriptions), since they describe either the referenced object and the subject which is describing. They can be considered terms at the boundary between logical level 2 of meta-description and 3 of meta-meta-description and - as such - they are not objectively definable; at this level the only possible verbal description are tales, poems, stories, witnesses of experiences, parables, metaphors and, ultimately, silence.
The territory indicated by these terms is entirely modelled by the principle of subjectivity, a region where:
No Place so Sacred from such Fops is barr'd,
Nor is Paul's Church more safe than Paul's Church-yard:
Nay, fly to Altars; there they'll talk you dead;
For Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread.
Distrustful Sense with modest Caution speaks;
It still looks home, and short Excursions makes;
But ratling Nonsense in full Vollies breaks;
And never shock'd, and never turn'd aside,
Bursts out, resistless, with a thundering Tyde!
Nor is Paul's Church more safe than Paul's Church-yard:
Nay, fly to Altars; there they'll talk you dead;
For Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread.
Distrustful Sense with modest Caution speaks;
It still looks home, and short Excursions makes;
But ratling Nonsense in full Vollies breaks;
And never shock'd, and never turn'd aside,
Bursts out, resistless, with a thundering Tyde!
Alexander Pope, An Essay on Criticism, 1709
In the description process by a subject (the describer) of an object (the described) there are two types of relations (the description): the first - that commonly understood - of the description of the described by the describer, the second (since - generally - the object cannot describe the subject, unless it is another subject) the description of the subject which describes the object.
 |
Description system within a specified context: the two opposite poles white and black are the describing subject and the described object; the two opposite processes are the description of the object and the description of the describing subject.
|
The first process is the one commonly intended as "description": millions of texts, encyclopedic entries, videos, films etc. are its representation. It is to be noted that the description of a specific object may change, either because the subject changes, and because the interpretation of the object may be different. For example, the description of a diamond is very different if made by a solid-state physicist, a geologist, a gemologist, a jeweler or by the buyer, although the physical object is always the same. Also, the description depends on the state of consciousness of the subject: a subject in "normal" conditions, drunk or under the influence of drugs may give very different descriptions of the same object.
The "objective" description for excellence is the scientific one, based on the fact that, using the same method under the same conditions, different observers always obtain the same data; but, at the next level, the one of data interpretation to formulate a theory or to verify an hypothesis, the subjective component becomes evident - in fact in several fields different or opposite theories coexist based upon the same "objective" data. Furthermore, if till the knowledge domains level represented by physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, physiology and engineering the object of description has an its own physical materiality (but not its interpretation which - evidently- is purely mental), at next and nearby levels as cognitive sciences, sociology, psychology, anthropology and so on to end with philosophy, the object of the description is purely conceptual/mental and not physical, and often even the definition of what a certain discipline is and should describe is a matter of interpretation. The ultimate paradox occurs, naturally, when object and subject coincide, as in the case of the sciences of the mind, where entities like higher metal functions , cognition, consciousness, the "I" and the "self" are purely subjective.
The second process is referred to the fact that a description, generally, does not carry information or is neutral if it is not specified who is describing, and in which context. A relevant example are the descriptions, statements, interpretations, opinions, discussions, debates, surveys and so by the media, which give - generally minimally - information on facts and events and - in a greater way - information about themselves.
Through a description that a subject make of an object therefore one get information both on the describing subject as well on the described object, in a variable way between the two and linked to the description context.
 |
| Logical levels of description. |
 |
| Logical levels of description for "objective" and "subjective" hierarchical levels. |
At logical level 1 takes place the description of the described from a describing; as such it is represented by - literally - millions of books, papers, encyclopedic entries that in history have described the knowledge of the external and internal worlds. According to the subjectivity principle and the scientific method the specification "on the part of a describer" is obvious and redundant: if the description is valid, according to the scientific methods, then all the describers give the same description - but not necessarily the same interpretation -. This is the level typical of the scientific description of the "external world" in terms of organized data with meaning with theories, with terms like time, space, energy, form, structure, system, element, process, learning, evolution, local and global. Since postwar the tradition of first and second cybernetics in the field of general system theory, merged in today science of complexity, has noted that the term "on the part of a describer" is instead essential in the epistemology of scientific description, as already noted in quantum and relativistic physics. At this level, for the subjective "internal world", belong the structures of perception and the body-mind results of cerebral activities, like thoughts, reasonings, imaginations, emotions and feelings.
The logical level of meta-description is related to meta-models of complexity, as synergetic for physics, dissipative structures theory for chemistry, the SOP meta-model and the concept of autopoiesis for biology. Epistemology, ontology, ontogenesis, philogenesis, emergence, cognition, organization, Pattern which Connects and 2nd order cybernetics are meta-terms of description which belong to this territory, according to Bateson's statement that, when one talks of complex systems - as living entities and their aggregates with related emergent phenomena - we should "follow the example of the entities about which we are talking": "It follows that when we talk about living entities, statements ... should always be labeled by reference to some descriptive proposition ...". " ... we shall see later, that every descriptive proposition is to be characterized according to logical typing of subject, predicate, and context." Also the structure of perception, considered, for example, in its complexity of body-mind-emotions interaction, is referred at this level:
 |
| The complexity of perception; from C.T. Tart, States of Consciousness. |
The description modalities of this territory are well expressed by a Bateson's story:
There's a story which I have used before... A man wanted to know about mind, not in nature, but in his computer. He asked (surely in his more polished Fortran):
'Will you ever think like a human being?' The machine then analyzed its own computational habits. Finally, it printed its answer on a piece of paper, as such machines do. The man ran to get the answer and found, neatly typed, the words
THAT REMINDS ME OF A STORY.
Mind and Nature, 1979The human consciousness and the selfconsciousness is one of the key emergent and self-referential phenomena, which integrates in a subjective way objective physical issues of matter, time, space, energy with awareness and the whole of life experience:
 |
| Emergence of human consciousness; from C.T. Tart, States of Consciousness. |
Besides, beyond logical level 3, a series of witnesses and experiences and of models coming from various traditions commonly categorized as "sacred" - mainly eastern - indicate further territories of experience and observation beyond consciousness, and - as a matter of fact - beyond language, where the duality subject/object becomes again unitary. The boundary between logical level 3 and higher is the one defined by propositions 6.5, 7 of Tractatus, which state that if a question can be put at all, then it can also be answered, and answered correctly, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. The witnesses of those who went forward and travelled these territories are in fact almost always expressed by silence; practices are instead indicated to reach and to know how to travel those territories, on the base that only a personal and individual experience may led to knowledge, inexpressible in words. In this, advanced western science practices and those of eastern inner knowledge are not so unlike, as noted by F. Capra:
For example in this territory there is the transition from the level 2 "mind", considered as the whole of cerebral processes and psychic functions, to the "Mind" of level 3, intended as "mind which observes the mind" and as immanent mind in a wider system then individual, to the "no-Mind", considered as a non-mental entity which observes, perceives and experiences the whole of the Mind.“The parallel between scientific experiments and mystical experiences may seem surprising in view of the very different nature of these acts of observation. Physicists perform experiments involving an elaborate teamwork and a highly sophisticated technology, whereas mystics obtain their knowledge through introspection, without any machinery, in the privacy of meditation. Scientific experiments, furthermore, seem to be repeatable any time and by anybody, whereas
mystical experiences seem to be reserved for a few individuals at special occasions. A closer examination shows, however, that the differences between the two kinds of observation lie only in their approach and not in their reliability or complexity.
Anybody who wants to repeat an experiment in modern subatomic physics has to undergo many years of training. Only then will he or she be able to ask nature a specific question through the experiment and to understand the answer.
Similarly, a deep mystical experience requires, generally, many years of training under an experienced master and, as in the scientific training, the dedicated time does not alone guarantee success. If the student is successful, however, he or she will be able to ‘repeat the experiment’. The repeatability of the experience is, in fact, essential to every mystical training and is the very aim of the mystics’ spiritual instruction.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.