Week 3 Bio: on autopoesis (an aspect of cybernetics) and the language of science,
What is cybernetics? "the science of communications and automatic control systems in both machines and living things" (google); also, "Cybernetics is a transdisciplinary approach for exploring regulatory systems—their structures, constraints, and possibilities." (Wikipedia).
What is autopoesis? A system capable of reproducing and maintaining itself (Wikipedia).
On the topic of cybernetics, which is a broad topic it seems, I found myself attached to autopoesis, especially when I came across this: "In other words, we can describe autopoietic systems as those producing more of their own complexity than the one produced by their environment" (Wikipedia).
What came to mind is how the language of science, including any discipline: physics, biology, technology... but also the arts, sociology, anthropology, philosophy!, etc. , becomes too "sciencey" and seems to live in its own bubble where the scientists, whether they are political or biological, propagate their own complexity about what it is they are studying - which brings two questions to mind: is it necessary? And, Is what they are studying really that complicated (in reality), or are they just living inside the representation of what they study, in their own autopoetic world as it were... in this way, have they become out of touch?
This is a real issue in my opinion. It's an issue because it is insular and exclusionary - if no one understands what you are talking about, then no one is going to attempt to learn about your field of study! And then what is left is a circle of philosophers who are the only ones allowed to philosophize, of anthropologists who are the only ones allowed to study people and culture. This seems very narrow-minded, even elitist. Another concern is that not all people in society have access to these sciences at the university level. Some departments are notoriously white, some are notoriously male-dominated, or both (philosophy is famously both). That's a shame because then you only get scientists from a certain background, which even in sciences that propose to be more "objective" we know that there is always participation and subjectivity at some level, whether we like to admit it or not. Surely we need a wide array of backgrounds to do proper justice to any field of study worth studying! Another concern is that we can't easily win over hearts and minds to a cause if no one can understand what we are talking about. That's a big concern for science because if we all made changes to better our environment, it would have an amazing impact, but perhaps it's not that compelling to make these changes when the science behind different phenomenon is "beyond" us, this might be true for how people feel about climate change, the intelligence of animals, and so on.
One struggle of this class is being able to comprehend the material. I am very thankful for our teacher who is so willing to explain things to us in a way that is pretty understandable
Autopoesis has a place in Chinese Medicine too, I believe. The language is very esoteric, "emolliate my Liver?", ... Shen, Jing? What are these things? In truth, I'm not entirely sure what they are either! And a lot can be missed in translation. But I know something and want to be able to talk to people, to patients, and not just a community of acupuncturists. To live inside autopoesis in the study of TCM we can probably contribute to such a deep and nuanced field, but to live outside of autopoesis, to live in a system, we can be healers.
I guess this topic of autopoesis inspires me to try to make bridges and not to be in a bubble that creates its own complexity.
What is autopoesis? A system capable of reproducing and maintaining itself (Wikipedia).
On the topic of cybernetics, which is a broad topic it seems, I found myself attached to autopoesis, especially when I came across this: "In other words, we can describe autopoietic systems as those producing more of their own complexity than the one produced by their environment" (Wikipedia).
What came to mind is how the language of science, including any discipline: physics, biology, technology... but also the arts, sociology, anthropology, philosophy!, etc. , becomes too "sciencey" and seems to live in its own bubble where the scientists, whether they are political or biological, propagate their own complexity about what it is they are studying - which brings two questions to mind: is it necessary? And, Is what they are studying really that complicated (in reality), or are they just living inside the representation of what they study, in their own autopoetic world as it were... in this way, have they become out of touch?
This is a real issue in my opinion. It's an issue because it is insular and exclusionary - if no one understands what you are talking about, then no one is going to attempt to learn about your field of study! And then what is left is a circle of philosophers who are the only ones allowed to philosophize, of anthropologists who are the only ones allowed to study people and culture. This seems very narrow-minded, even elitist. Another concern is that not all people in society have access to these sciences at the university level. Some departments are notoriously white, some are notoriously male-dominated, or both (philosophy is famously both). That's a shame because then you only get scientists from a certain background, which even in sciences that propose to be more "objective" we know that there is always participation and subjectivity at some level, whether we like to admit it or not. Surely we need a wide array of backgrounds to do proper justice to any field of study worth studying! Another concern is that we can't easily win over hearts and minds to a cause if no one can understand what we are talking about. That's a big concern for science because if we all made changes to better our environment, it would have an amazing impact, but perhaps it's not that compelling to make these changes when the science behind different phenomenon is "beyond" us, this might be true for how people feel about climate change, the intelligence of animals, and so on.
One struggle of this class is being able to comprehend the material. I am very thankful for our teacher who is so willing to explain things to us in a way that is pretty understandable
Autopoesis has a place in Chinese Medicine too, I believe. The language is very esoteric, "emolliate my Liver?", ... Shen, Jing? What are these things? In truth, I'm not entirely sure what they are either! And a lot can be missed in translation. But I know something and want to be able to talk to people, to patients, and not just a community of acupuncturists. To live inside autopoesis in the study of TCM we can probably contribute to such a deep and nuanced field, but to live outside of autopoesis, to live in a system, we can be healers.
I guess this topic of autopoesis inspires me to try to make bridges and not to be in a bubble that creates its own complexity.
Comments
Post a Comment