Note: Commons et al now have a new stage above that call meta-cross-paradigmatic. I'm honestly not that interested in the minutiae of all this stageism. What's next? Super-post-trans-meta-cross-what da fa?
Our house is on fire. Join the resistance: Do no harm/take no shit. My idiosyncratic and confluent bricolage of progressive politics, the collaborative commons, next generation cognitive neuroscience, American pragmatism, de/reconstruction, dynamic systems, embodied realism, postmetaphysics, psychodynamics, aesthetics. It ain't much but it's not nothing.
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Crossing paradigms
Continuing the last post, Edwards
gets at this from his own angle via his four orders of holonic
relations: Intra, inter, systemic and inter-systemic (189-90).
Intra-holonic order is the dynamics within an individual holon, often
the focus of developmentalists. Inter-holonic order is the mediational
dynamics between holons, often the study of constructionists. The
systemic order is the relationship between holons and the holarchy in
which it is embedded. He uses the governance holarchy as an example of
this. Inter-systemic order is multi-lens frameworks "which consider
multiple systems of holons and holarchies in dynamic environments"
(191). The latter sounds a lot like Lakoff et al's cogsci, both at least
cross-paradigmatic approaches.
Note: Commons et al now have a new stage above that call meta-cross-paradigmatic. I'm honestly not that interested in the minutiae of all this stageism. What's next? Super-post-trans-meta-cross-what da fa?
Note: Commons et al now have a new stage above that call meta-cross-paradigmatic. I'm honestly not that interested in the minutiae of all this stageism. What's next? Super-post-trans-meta-cross-what da fa?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.