Recall earlier in the OOO thread (this post,
and before and after) where I was wondering about thoughts as
autonomous substances that do not belong to any one individual but were
more how larger cultural assemblages transmit and propogate themselves,
like memes. I was reminded of this by Montuori's paper on Morin and complex thought. For example:
"While we normally assume that we have ideas, it became clear to
Morin that ideas can also have us—literally possess us. Human beings can
literally be possessed by ideologies and belief systems, whether on the
Left or the Right, whether in science or religion. Henceforth, Morin’s
effort would be to develop a form of thinking—and of being in the
world—that is always self-reflective and self-critical, always open and
creative, always eager to challenge the fundamental assumptions
underlying a system of thought, and always alert for the ways in which,
covertly or overtly, we create inviolate centers that cannot be
questioned or challenged. Knowledge always requires the knowledge of
knowledge, the ongoing investigation and interrogation of how we
construct knowledge" (4).
The discussion on pp. 8-9 reminded me of how I view this forum and my
blog. Morin's writings attempted to include his personal experiences,
his personality, and express the process of its being and becoming. This
is contra to the general academic process, where oneself is to be
eliminated as much as possible, where 'objectivity' is paramount. Like
this forum he tried to display the "actual process of inquiry itself, to
the ups and downs of the research, the blind alleys, the mistakes, the
insights, dialogues, and the creative process."
Oh, this is nice: "And this is in many ways Morin’s central
contribution—to point out that there are problems, such as the
human/nature or two culture split, that must be approached with a
radically different way of thinking, a way of thinking that, as Morin
states, is not disjunctive (either/or), but connects, without the
Hegelian assumption that the dialectic will always lead to a new
synthesis" (10-11).
More from Montuori:
“Morin refers to mathematical approaches to complexity that still
draw on a classical epistemology as 'restricted complexity.' This is
contrasted with 'general complexity,' which requires a fundamental
rethinking of what we consider knowledge and of how we think. We should
therefore not think of this as an attempt to use 'complexity theory,' as
it is known in the United States, to address issues in the sciences or
philosophy, even if we can find some conceptual parallels” (12).
“Of particular interest for integral theorists, I believe, is the way
Morin helps to think through the relationships and interactions between
the four quadrants, for instance between brain and mind, individual and
culture, and so on.” (14).
“For Morin the issue is addressing the problems of thinking, and this
is where his work begins to show considerable parallels with efforts to
articulate post-formal ways of thinking, offering a bridge to integral
theorists. Herbert Koplowitz (1984) argues strongly for the relationship
between general system theory and post-formal thought: 'Formal
operational thought is dualistic. It draws sharp distinctions between
the knower and the known, between one object (or variable) and another,
and between pairs of opposites (e.g., good and bad).' Elsewhere
Koplowitz states, 'In post-formal operational thought, the knower is
seen as unified with the known, various objects (and variables) are seen
as part of a continuum, and opposites are seen as poles of one concept'
(as cited in Kegan, 1982, p. 32). In Method we see Morin articulating
at considerable length some of Koplowitz’s key principles, also applying
them to systems theory and cybernetics” (15).
“Morin articulates the importance of the notion of open system. He
spends several hundred pages outlining the quite dramatic implications
of a concept that is all-too often taken as a foundation of systems
thinking, but largely undertheorized. Morin critiques systems theory
approaches extensively, and points to the problematic nature of
discussing open and closed systems as opposites when in fact every open
system is also, to some extent closed. The complexity of open systems
leads him to questions such as how an open system is also closed, the
crucial nature of a system’s relationship with the environment, the
nature of autonomy, the opposition between reductionism and holism, the
possibility of emergence, and self-organization, or as Morin revisions
it, self-eco-organization” (16).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.