Today, to investigate the relationship between an object-phenomenon-individual and the various relations that define it – a relationship that is tantamount to a black box for us – we can use a homeostatic process, defining a conceptual instrument made up of interconnected subsets in a way allowing for a perturbation from one of these subsystems to influence the others, which in turn react with the same abilities.
In any homeostatic object-process, all possible configurations have an equal possibility of being created by the reciprocal action of its defining elements. The occurrence of a certain configuration does not have any effect on what the next one will be. The process is random, and it is impossible to predict the future sequence.
This, in other words, means that there is no information being produced by the homeostat, and therefore it is not possible to build a meaningful communicative structure.
However, if our conceptual homeostat is able to archive the configurations it experienced in order to reuse them, the probability of predicting and producing information and communication undergoes a radical change, in the sense that some configurations will in fact never occur, while others will repeat themselves – and with the archive serving as a kind of memory function, it becomes possible to define a rhythm and a regularity, ultimately becoming a system of shared norms.
The fact that these exist and are shared gives them sense, so though there is no need for us to attribute significance to them.
By definition, this is a communication system because no subsystem can be in balance while isolated from others. And, insofar as it is a communication system, it will generate a series of feedbacks that, over time, will generate a series of regularities that will become a kind of punctuation. We are witnessing the system’s giving birth to a signifying “behavior.”
This homeostat is a stochastic process. A has an effect on B, whatever B produces has an effect on A, A and B are influenced by the context, and at the same time they influence that context.
Any entity is continually influenced by communication.
Any identity depends on communication.
The identities create a system.
In order to understand himself, man must understand nature. Likewise, to be “understood” by nature, man must be understood.
The generation of significances occurs via a homeostatic process based on the sharing of experience.
Understanding the interaction between man and nature:
We who want to understand the interaction between man and nature must insert both of them into a dynamic homeostatic scheme in which feedback is generated in such a way as to produce shared norms and then a kind of punctuation. We can then attribute signficiance to every norm or set of norms, anod nothing forbids us from creating a complex mythology of norms, replete with their “deepest” or “real” meanings, even if these suppose a magic or fantastical explanation of how the norms originated.
In fact, in this poetic point of view there is no necessary relation between fact and explanation. “Concepts” are formed when they emerge from a homeostatic system as rhythm, regulatrity, and punctuation.
Hic, Nunc and the past:
Our hermeneutic is based on a process that, once activated, is determined by preceding experience and is enriched by regularity and shared significances.
The past is thus the algorithmic matrix of the present, as it is in this system’s past that we find those regularities that become the formal rules for a communicative syntax.
Any object-individual-phenomenon A that is inserted in a system with N (Nature) is tightly bound to the relation both undergo, and will be to some extend determined by that.
What is past is the form of the present.
The relativity of the notions of reality and world:
This initial essay on the tech-noetic relations between man and nature aims to explore, hermeneutically, a world of hypothetical significances or relations that exist between man and nature. This would offer us a way to be closer to the environment in which we live as well as to understand ourselves better, especially amid today’s technological revolution.
Human language incorporates notions of meanings bestowed on the reality and the world. Still, once we accept the homeostatic system and principle according to which relations can be observed only in the context where they take place, both those words – “reality” and “world” – lose their meaning and become two rather ambiguous terms. Identifying a reality in the world, i.e. a shared psycho-cultural reality, must vary along with the context and the position of the observer.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento