The ganglion cell density of the quail’s retina was studied in sections and whole mounts. Two regions of high ganglion cell density were found, corresponding to an afoveate area centralis and an area dorsalis. Oil droplets were found to be isotropically distributed throughout the retina. It is proposed that the significance of such retinal regional specialization, in comparison to similar studies in the pigeon and the chick, is that regional specialization in the avian retina is more closely related to feeding habits than to phylogenetic descendence.

Four of the papers in this issue belong with a set, still in progress, of papers devoted to the implications of the work of Humberto Maturana. Imoto reviews the philosophical nature of Maturana’s work and concludes that Maturana has provided a renewed view of objectivity based on our human biology of cognition. Russell and Ison, as well as Bilson consider the implications of assuming a constitutive ontology in two different domains of praxis, namely in stakeholder involved research, and in addressing the vexed issue of power in social service programs, respectively. Bond addresses the concerns of a runaway technology, and offers a reconciliation between technology and art, suggesting an escape from the demands of technology through generating and participating in networks of conversations as works of art, in what I see as an aesthetic composition of a world to live forth.

Context: Humberto Maturana has generated a coherent and extensive explicatory matrix that encompasses his research in neurophysiology, cognition, language, emotion, and love. Purpose: Can we formulate a map of Maturana’s work in a manner that is consistent with the systemic matrix it represents and that serves as an aid for understanding Maturana’s philosophy without reifying its representation? Method: Our arguments are based on experience gained from teaching and presentations. Results: We present a map that that represents Maturana’s main contributions as clusters of notions clustered according to how we see them to be related to each other as a projection of a matrix of ideas onto a two-dimensional space. We claim that there are many paths through these clusters of ideas. Though ideas relevant to individuals are obtained from various partial perspectives, a deep understanding of any element is dependent on an understanding of the whole matrix. Furthermore, we summarize the contributions to this special issue on Maturana.

Key words: generative process, matrix of concepts, systemic, conceptual map, pedagogy

Context: Maturana’s lifework is extensive, and consists of a coherent network of interlinked ideas the consequences of which have not been fully explored. Problem: What does it take to understand Maturana’s work? Is “learning” Maturana as arduous as learning a completely different language, or is there sufficient value in learning selected elements of his network of ideas? Method: We discuss these fundamental questions and relate them to aspects of understanding, word meaning and the scientific method. Results: While getting only partially familiar with Maturana can have its merits in certain contexts, there is a clear danger of trying to understand Maturana on the basis of words such as autopoiesis, consciousness, cognition, and science. Implications: We identify three directions in which Maturana’s ideas can be further explored: preparing social media videos, finding ever new domains of application, and their historical-conceptual relativization.

Key words: Language learning, metaphors, scientific method, understanding, word meaning

The notion of mechanistic explanation is given a very specific meaning by Maturana. Does it influence research in human sciences? In this article an attempt is made to answer this question.

Abstract: In response to the many interesting points raised by the commentators, I discuss Maturana’s “circularities of speech,” the importance of metabolism, the absence of cognition in chemical autopoiesis, the semantics of “mind” and “consciousness,” and the central issue of whether the Santiago theory overcomes the Cartesian dualism of mind and body.

Context: Humberto Maturana’s theory of autopoiesis and cognition, developed in collaboration with Francisco Varela, forms the very core of a new systemic understanding of life, integrating life’s biological and cognitive dimensions. Problem: The divide between mind, matter and life has persisted through human history and led to endless schisms philosophically and academically. Though Maturana’s work provides the epistemological and ontological basis for a unification between these distinctions, this is not fully recognized or acknowledged. Method: I review the historical development of Maturana’s ideas, including his early collaboration with Varela. Thereby, I show the path from understanding the circularity of life to the necessary structurally mediated relationship with the environment as the basis of cognition. Also, I draw attention to parallels with the work of Gregory Bateson, Ilya Prigogine, and Geoffrey Chew. Results: Maturana’s great achievement is presenting a scientific theory that overcomes the Cartesian division of mind and matter, as it shows that, at all levels of life, mind and matter, process and structure, are inseparably connected. Implications: Maturana presented a path for the unification of mind, matter and life that will enable researchers in each field to support one another while reducing the fragmentation of the sciences. However, further work is required to determine the proper applicability of autopoiesis so that it can be used in various disciplines. Many details remain to be clarified and integrated, and many implications remain to be explored in depth. In particular, I encourage researchers interested in systemic, multidisciplinary approaches to explore the extensions of the concept of molecular autopoiesis to the cellular, social, ecological, and planetary levels. Keywords: Autopoiesis, cognition, mind, Santiago theory, structural coupling.

George A. Kelly, a psychologist born in Kansas, began to elaborate personal construct theory in the first half of the twentieth century; Humberto R. Maturana, a Chilean biologist, started to conceive his theory of autopoiesis during the second half of the same century. The two were unknown to each other, yet their theories show striking similarities. Though the focus of convenience of personal construct theory is psychotherapy whereas the theory of autopoiesis is a biological theory of knowledge, Kelly’s ingenious ideas can be enriched by the way in which Maturana deals with features common to both theories.

Criticizes H. R. Maturana and F. J. Varela’s (1980) proposition that the passion to change others is not just ethically wrong but essentially impossible. Maturana argued that since reality is observer-dependent, no knowledge about an objective reality is possible. Maturana also stated that the behavior of people is not a purposeful accommodation to the environment but a manifestation of internal structure. It is suggested that Maturana’s distinction between organization and structure is not incompatible with the idea that the therapist may purposefully structure the therapeutic environment to encourage a family to change in a given direction. It is concluded that the passion to change others is intrinsically constitutive of the therapist and that even Maturana is a closeted agent of change in his effort to shift the thinking of family therapists.