Key word "ontological agnosticism"
Glasersfeld E. von (2008) Can Dichotomies Be Tamed? Constructivist Foundations 3(3): 123–126. https://constructivist.info/3/3/123
Glasersfeld E. von
Can Dichotomies Be Tamed?.
Constructivist Foundations 3(3): 123–126.
Fulltext at https://constructivist.info/3/3/123
Purpose: The notion of dichotomy is central to Josef Mitterer’s work and he uses the term as a portmanteau. My paper characterizes the specific dichotomies he describes, uses C. K. Ogden’s work on “Opposition” to classify them, and reviews attempts to overcome incompatible oppositions in other disciplines. Approach: Conceptual analysis in an attempt to show some of the conceptual differences in the various types of opposition. A “sampler” indicates possible divisions. Findings: From the constructivist point of view, the notion of dichotomy is a complex one and must be divided into separate types, not all of which can be discarded in rational discourse. Implications: From this author’s perspective, Mitterer’s publications present a powerful stand against the tradition of realism and lead one to hope that his next will be a primer of non-dualistic discourse.
Johnson D. K. (2010) Footprints in the Sand: Radical Constructivism and the Mystery of the Other. Constructivist Foundations 6(1): 90–99. https://constructivist.info/6/1/090
Johnson D. K.
Footprints in the Sand: Radical Constructivism and the Mystery of the Other.
Constructivist Foundations 6(1): 90–99.
Fulltext at https://constructivist.info/6/1/090
Context: Few professional philosophers have addressed in any detail radical constructivism, but have focused instead on the related assumptions and limitations of postmodern epistemology, various anti-realisms, and subjective relativism. Problem: In an attempt to supply a philosophical answer to the guest editors’ question, “Why isn’t everyone a radical constructivist?” I address the realist (hence non-radical) implications of the theory’s invocation of “others” as an invariable, observer-independent, “external” constraint. Results: I argue that constructivists cannot consistently defend a radically subjectivist theory of knowing while remaining entirely agnostic about the nature and existence of the larger world (including independent others). That is, any non-solipsistic account of human experience must explicitly acknowledge its extra-subjective, ontological dimension. Implications: It follows that no pedagogical, social, philosophical, or commonsensical insight associated with so-called “trivial” or “social” constructivism survives or receives any support from the move to radical constructivism.
Scholte T. (2016) “Black Box” Theatre: Second-Order Cybernetics and Naturalism in Rehearsal and Performance. Constructivist Foundations 11(3): 598–610. https://cepa.info/2889
“Black Box” Theatre: Second-Order Cybernetics and Naturalism in Rehearsal and Performance.
Constructivist Foundations 11(3): 598–610.
Fulltext at https://cepa.info/2889
Context: The thoroughly second-order cybernetic underpinnings of naturalist theatre have gone almost entirely unremarked in the literature of both theatre studies and cybernetics itself. As a result, rich opportunities for the two fields to draw mutual benefit and break new ground through both theoretical and empirical investigations of these underpinnings have, thus far, gone untapped. Problem: The field of cybernetics continues to remain academically marginalized for, among other things, its alleged lack of experimental rigor. At the same time, the field of theatre studies finds itself at an impasse between post-structuralist semioticians and embodied cognitivists regarding key onto-epistemological issues. A program of research framing and utilizing naturalist theatre as a second-order cybernetic/cybersemiotic laboratory holds much promise in addressing both matters and lending credence to Ross Ashby’s assertion that “the discovery that two fields are related leads to each branch helping in the development of the other.” Method: After establishing the nature of the onto-epistemological deadlock within theatre studies, this article examines the application of cybernetic heuristics within naturalistic theatre, leading to a second-order cybernetic analysis of its processes of production and reception and the outline of an experimental program for exploring these processes further. Results: Foundations for a model of naturalist theatre as a cybersemiotic laboratory grounded in a novel operationalization of Gordon Pask’s conversation theory. Implications: The proposed laboratory could result in the generation of quantitative and qualitative research pertaining to several dimensions of second-order cybernetics; particularly cybersemiotics, which, as a result, may end up better positioned to help dissolve onto-epistemological deadlocks between constructivists and realists of all stripes across the academy and beyond. Constructivist content: I argue that an analysis of naturalistic theatre’s processes of meaning-making filtered through the constructivist ontological agnosticism of second-order cybernetics offers a productive middle way forward for those on both sides of the social constructivist/embodied cognitive realist divide, within and beyond theatre studies. The article draws upon the works of Gregory Bateson, Søren Brier, Ranulph Glanville, Heinz von Foerster, and Niklas Luhmann.
Export result page as: