Abstract: My intent in this essay is to reflect on the history of some biological notions such as autopoiesis, structural coupling, and cognition, that I have developed since the early 1960's as a result of my work on visual perception and the organization of the living. No doubt I shall repeat things that I have said in other publications (Maturana & Varela, 1980, 1988), and I shall present notions that once they are said appear as obvious truisms. Moreover, I shall refine or expand the meaning of such notions, or even modify them. Yet, in any case, the reader is not invited to attend to the truisms, or to what seems to be obvious, rather he or she is invited to attend to the consequences that those notions entail for the understanding of cognition as a biological process. After all, explanations or demonstrations always become self evident once they are understood and accepted, and the purpose of this essay is the expansion of understanding in all dimensions of human existence.

Key words: Autopoiesis, cognition, explanations, self-consciousness, structural coupling

Autopoiesis and the Biology of Cognition attributes a practical and connotative role to language but also gives importance to emotions which together with language braid in forming the consensual domain of conversations of living organisms. This paper outlines the biology of cognition’s view that language has a connotative nature together with the claim that language’s role is a practical coordination of coordination of actions. In poetry, language becomes the medium for producing aesthetic events that grasp the domain of emotions of writer and reader. Reflecting on the type of language that poetry uses as a medium for its creation/poiesis, it is speculated that language expressed in the written form a poem seems to have both denotative and connotative nature which gives the description of the object the immediacy of both beauty and emotion. The paper argues that language in poetry does cease to have the practical role attributed by autopoiesis.

Key words: autopoiesis, language, cognition, poetry, biology of cognition.

Open peer commentary on the article “In Maturana’s Wake: The Biology of Cognition’s Legacy and its Prospects” by Randall Whitaker. Abstract: With respect to pedagogic goals, Whitaker’s work stands for itself. First, I suggest valuing Maturana’s first-person approach to social interaction analysis and further exploring his late work and experience in applying biology of cognition to practical problems in social relations. Then I criticize Whitaker’s insufficient explanation of his distinction of the “abstract (non-physical)” nature of what he calls the “novel domain” engendered by the feature of operational closure of the nervous system. I end by discussing the difficulties encountered by the author when trying to “extract” a pedagogical methodology from biology of cognition.

This article is a critical examination of the possible relevance of a specific approach to cognitive science for systemic family therapy. I provide a way of comparing the conceptual backgrounds for both these fields and, on that basis, propose some conclusions that underline the difficulty of the task.

Context: Humberto Maturana’s biology of cognition (BoC) represents a novel analysis of cognition grounded in biology and neuroscience. While BoC has facilitated demonstrable improvements in research and development results, it contrasts with prevailing mainstream viewpoints, models, and terminology. Accordingly, effort is required to develop a working knowledge of Maturana’s work before one can reasonably apply it or contribute to BoC’s ongoing conceptual advancement. Problem: The effort required in learning BoC increases the risk of misrepresenting or misinterpreting BoC and overlooking its value. Applying BoC requires both a working knowledge and creative adaptations. These adaptations can prove difficult and obscure recognition of credit due BoC for positive outcomes. Finally, the BoC community of interest faces challenges in absorbing lessons learned and refining the BoC conceptual framework to facilitate future researchers in benefiting from Maturana’s legacy. These issues reflect three areas of concern: (a) effectively understanding BoC; (b) usefully applying BoC; and (c) elaborating and extending BoC. Method: I identify key issues underlying these areas of concern, review lessons learned regarding the understanding and application areas, and offer recommendations for elucidating some of the most important issues for constructively advancing BoC. Using examples from successful professional experience, I illustrate the issues involved in applying BoC in research and development projects, the benefits obtained, and the problems in assigning credit for such benefits to BoC. Results: Access to fundamental BoC resources has improved over the last three decades. The specific points of difficulty in developing a working knowledge of BoC remain much the same as they were for Maturana’s university students decades ago. The four issues I consider most important for clarification or conceptual development are: A - the role and scope of autopoiesis, B - ontological and epistemological entailments of BoC, C - the entitative bias, and D - the new orientation that shifts from entities to relations. Implications: The core of biology of cognition risks increasing obscurity unless (a) its tenets are more clearly established and widely disseminated and (b) the means for applying its insights for practical benefit are developed and tested via experience. These results are offered to aid in progressing Maturana’s version of constructivism toward increased recognition of the potential value BoC - and constructivism in general - offers. Constructivist content: Maturana’s work entails a focus on an observer’s subjective experience of its life world, and therefore entails an epistemology consistent with the constructivist perspective. Key words: Applied constructivism, autopoiesis, biology of cognition, epistemology, languaging, Maturana, observer, ontology, Varela.