Open peer commentary on the article “Enactive Metaphorizing in the Mathematical Experience” by Daniela Díaz-Rojas, Jorge Soto-Andrade & Ronnie Videla-Reyes. Abstract: Welcoming their scholarly focus on metaphorizing, I critique Díaz-Rojas, Soto-Andrade and Videla-Reyes’s selection of the hypothetical constructs “conceptual metaphor” and “enactive metaphor” as guiding the epistemological positioning, educational design, and analytic interpretation of interactive mathematics education purporting to operationalize enactivist theory of cognition - both these constructs, I argue, are incompatible with enactivism. Instead, I draw on ecological dynamics to promote a view of metaphors as projected constraints on action, and I explain how mathematical concepts can be grounded in perceptual reorganization of motor coordination. I end with a note on how metaphors may take us astray and why that, too, is worthwhile.
Abu-Akel A. (2018) The Case for Simulation Theory and Theory Theory as Interaction Accounts of Theory of Mind. Constructivist Foundations 14(1): 33–34. https://cepa.info/5583
Open peer commentary on the article “Decentering the Brain: Embodied Cognition and the Critique of Neurocentrism and Narrow-Minded Philosophy of Mind” by Shaun Gallagher. Abstract: Simulation theory and theory theory are interaction accounts of theory of mind that have been neurocentrically characterized. A hybrid of these theories approximates the interaction theory of social cognition, and can be described in an indexical-symbolic processing framework.
Accame F. (2007) Ernst von Glasersfeld and the Italian Operative School. Constructivist Foundations 2(2-3): 18–24. https://cepa.info/23
Purpose: Appreciating the relationship between Sylvio Ceccato and Ernst von Glasersfeld, both as people and in their work. Approach: historical and personal accounts, archeological approach to written evidence. Findings: Ceccato’s work is introduced to an English speaking audience, and the roots of Glasersfeld’s work in Ceccato’s is explored. Flaws in Ceccato’s approach are indicated, together with how Glasersfeld’s work overcomes these, specially in language and automatic translation, and what became Radical Constructivism. Conclusion: Glasersfeld willingly acknowledges Ceccato, who he still refers to as the Master. But Ceccato’s work is little known, specially in the English speaking world. The introduction, critique and delineation of extension and resolution of Ceccato’s ideas in Glasersfeld’s work is the intended value of the paper.
Alhadeff-Jones M. (2010) Challenging the limits of critique in education through Morin’s paradigm of complexity. Studies in Philosophy and Education 29(5): 477–490.
This paper is inspired by Edgar Morin’s paradigm of complexity and his constructivist and non-dualistic critique of scientific and philosophical forms of reductionism. It aims to challenge the fragmentation and the reduction framing the understanding of the notion of “critique” in educational sciences, and more broadly in the academia. Based on a review of the literature identified in French-speaking and English-speaking critical traditions in education, several factors determining the way the idea of critique is reduced are highlighted. Stressing the tacit character of those variables challenges the limits of traditional conceptions of critique in contemporary education. According to the constructivist, complex and non-dualistic position adopted, this paper illustrates the relevance of an epistemological framework integrating more systematically the conditions of emergence, the limitations, as well as the antagonistic, complementary and contradictory relationships, that connect educational theories of critique to one another. Based on this position, this paper finally suggests that a distinction be made between “hypocritique” and “hypercritique” as a semantic artifact, stressing the importance of challenging educational research and theories according to the level of complexity that one may attribute to them.
Arminjon M. (2018) How Far Can We Extend E-approaches? Calling for an Epistemological and Political History of Embodiment. Constructivist Foundations 14(1): 27–30. https://cepa.info/5581
Open peer commentary on the article “Decentering the Brain: Embodied Cognition and the Critique of Neurocentrism and Narrow-Minded Philosophy of Mind” by Shaun Gallagher. Abstract: I intend to explore some of the implications of Gallagher’s target article. Retracing the circulation of concepts such as “embodied,” “embedded,” “extended,” etc. in social epidemiology, feminist science and epigenetics, I advocate for studying E-approaches from an epistemological, historical and political viewpoint in order to critically assess the transformations of knowledge that we are currently witnessing.
Baron P. (2019) Owning one’s epistemology in religious studies research methodology. Kybernetes 49(8): 2057–2071. https://cepa.info/7459
Purpose: There is a lack of epistemological considerations in religious studies methodologies, which have resulted in an on-going critique in this field. In addressing this critique, the researcher’s observer effect needs to be actively accounted for owing to the influence of the researcher’s epistemology in the author’s research. This paper aims to answer the question of why a researcher should address one’s epistemology in the research. Design/methodology/approach – Using second-order cybernetics as an approach, observer dependence is exemplified and justified in the context of religious studies research methodology. The research activity is shown as a relational temporal coupling that introduces inter-subjective aspects to the research. The research process is analysed showing the need to provide scope for the researcher’s epistemology in one’s research. Findings: A relational observer-dependent approach to research embraces the epistemology of the researcher and the participants providing equality in the relationship. The research results are thus framed according to the nature of the relationship and are thus not detached. This addresses social justice and reduces troubling truth claims. Research limitations/implications – This first paper focuses on the question of why epistemology should be included in scholarly research. A detailed framework for how scholars may achieve this goal is to be part of the future study and is not presented in this paper. Practical implications: In many positivist approaches there is a motivation to hide the researcher; however, recently there has been a move towards including authors in the first person, realising that science is tied to politics, which does not reach its ideals of objectivity. Cybernetics is presented as an approach to addressing the move from “objective” to “subjective” research. Social implications – Researchers cannot get into the minds of their participants and thus an authorial privileged presentation by the researcher of the participant’s experiences is fraught with epistemological weaknesses. Attempting to own one’s own epistemology could address social justice in research by personalising the research and accounting for the observer effect and the inter-subjective attributes of the research relationship. Originality/value – The principle of observer dependence in cybernetics is not new; however, a research approach that focuses on the nature of knowing and how this may influence one’s research in religious studies is uncommon. It is thus presented here as a viable option to address the critique of epistemologically weak research methodology in religious studies.
Barsch A. (1996) Angst vor einem neuen Paradigma? Replik auf Ralph Gehrkes “Was leistet der Radikale Konstruktivismus für die Literaturwissenschaft? ” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 70(2): 313–321. https://cepa.info/3917
Ralph Gehrke’s critique of an empirical study of literature reveals misunderstandings and implications which first need to be questioned. The discussion in this paper focuses an the following aspects: the constitution of the domain of literary scholarship, of concepts of literature, methods of analyzing, and questions of the self-definition of literary scholars in a media-dominated era.
Bimbenet (2018) A Decapitated Program? Constructivist Foundations 14(1): 25–27. https://cepa.info/5580
Open peer commentary on the article “Decentering the Brain: Embodied Cognition and the Critique of Neurocentrism and Narrow-Minded Philosophy of Mind” by Shaun Gallagher. Abstract: In this commentary I suggest that the “E-approaches” advocated by Gallagher should move a step further, beyond the negative critiques that they address to the classical (representationalist and neurocentered) framework in cognitive science. If these approaches do not want to look like a “decapitated program,” neglecting the rational dimension of our experience, more should be said about our higher-level capacities and their perceptual and pragmatic foundation.
Bishop J. M. & Nasuto S. J. (2005) Second-order cybernetics and enactive perception. Kybernetes 34(9/10): 1309–1320. https://cepa.info/835
Purpose: To present an account of cognition integrating second-order cybernetics (SOC) together with enactive perception and dynamic systems theory. Methodology – The paper presents a brief critique of classical models of cognition then outlines how integration of SOC, enactive perception and dynamic systems theory can overcome some weaknesses of the classical paradigm. Findings: Presents the critique of evolutionary robotics showing how the issues of teleology and autonomy are left unresolved by this paradigm although their solution fits within the proposed framework. Implications: The paper highlights the importance of genuine autonomy in the development of artificial cognitive systems. It sets out a framework within which the robotic research of cognitive systems could succeed. Practical implications: There are no immediate practical implications but see research implications. Originality/value – It joins the discussion on the fundamental nature of cognitive systems and emphasises the importance of autonomy and embodiment. Relevance: This paper draws explicit links between second order cybernetics, enactivism and dynamic systems accounts of cognition.
Bond P. (2004) Maturana, Technology, and Art: Is a Biology of Technology Possible? Cybernetics & Human Knowing 11(2): 49–70. https://cepa.info/3389
This paper is a celebration of Maturana as an artist, who, in his writing, has brought forth a model, or perhaps it can be called a social ideal, in which people coexist in love, mutual respect and honesty, a form of coexistence from which social responsibility ought to arise spontaneously. Maturana, by openly inviting re?ection upon the condition of humanity, on the nature of humanness, and, in his critique of the concept of metadesign, our addiction to technology, becomes an artist. In his own words, he becomes a poet of daily life. It is in this role that Maturana has provoked an exploration to begin into the possibilities of extending the application of his biology of cognition, and his insights into the phenomena of technology and art, to understanding and resolving the problems created by our apparent inability to regulate the development of technology.