Re: Autopoiesis ....and how it is analogous to Rosennean Complexity

["Judith Rosen" <***>]

In any discussion of ideas as intricate as these, there will always be
misunderstandings based on language-- at both the expressive end and the
receptive end. Even native speakers of the same language can and do
misunderstand one another, misinterpret meanings, and develop opinions about
what they think they heard or understood. This seems to be a normal human
failing and ocassionally gets complicated with different languages being a
native tongue in one or more of the participants of any discussion. But all
of these hurdles are navigable, and I do believe that we can each make our
actual ideas understood eventually, and learn a great deal from one another
in the process. It is a constructive process. I think Juan-Carlos' english
is fine, as is everyone else who has posted material here so far. In fact, I
had FAR more trouble earlier today with a native western New Yorker (which
is what I am, too), in a meeting about my handicapped daughter's therapies,
than I do reading Juan-Carlos' posts (but that's another discussion, and
requires a good stiff shot of scotch as fortification before embarking
upon!!! It was a very tiring, frustrating meeting...)

My understanding of Autopoiesis Theory is elementary and was acquired by
reading several descriptions of it on different websites devoted to
discussion of the subject. The accounts I read all used the words "living
machine" and "objectivity" in ways that my father has used them, but he
disagreed with the sentiments that were being conveyed in those instances. I
realize that the founders of Autopoeisis Theory were not native English
speakers, and so perhaps they did not intend the meanings my father was
ascribing to the word choices, but the accounts on the websites were pretty
clear that their meanings were indeed the ones that my father objected to.
The even had a glossary on more than one, with their definitions. The waters
become very, very muddied. Who misunderstood what, when? What is the true
intended meaning? We can only keep asking and keep talking, listening, and
trying. I'm fascinated. This kind of multi thread dialogue is exactly what a
discussion list is meant for!

 I have a question: How is "teleonomy" related to "teleology"? Teleology is
a subject that comes up frequently with my father's work. But I don't want
to launch into a discussion of it unless it was the intended concept.
"Teleonomy" isn't in my dictionary, unfortunately. Can someone enlighten me?

Thanks in advance,
Judith
Website address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com/
My favorite discussion list (Independent-- Not part of Rosen Enterprises):
***
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan-Carlos Letelier" <***>
To: <***>
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:54 PM
Subject: [ROSEN] Autopoiesis ....and how it is analogous to Rosennean
Complexity


> Dear List;
>
>         I saw yesterday's  messages from Tim Gwinn and Judith Rosen
concerning
> Autopoiesis and now, in a less than perfect english, I will try to clarify
> the points suggested by TIM GWINN
>
> 1) I agree with TG that, in the context of M&V; the term MACHINE should be
> interpreteed in its historical context.  Please be aware that one of the
> fundamental questions that M&V had to write the book (in 1973 in Spanish)
> was to fight against the notion of TELEONOMY put forward by Jacob. (In la
> Logique du vivant).  They use the term "machine" to specifically denote an
> entity that only follows internally generated rules, and not wide
principles
> of minimization.  For M&V it was a very important point...becuase
"machines"
> do have structure and organization.  Thus in some sense their effort was
to
> build a biological theory of organization, a path already visited by Rosen
> in 1958-59.  Their effort required a re-definition of the notions of
> Structure and Organization.
>
> 2) I agree with TG about the notion of "clousure": they meant "operational
> closure", not
> thermodynamic closure.  In this sense autopoietic systems are really
closed
> to efficient causation... exactly like (M,R) systems.  Again the principal
> idea is that an autopoietic systems follows an internal dynamics defined
by
> its own metabolism.
>
> 3) Also I want to point to another similarity between the point of views
of
> RR and M&V: A correct theory of living systems demands a new epistemology.
> The "Cosmology" inherited from physicists is not adequate to understand
> living systems. In the case of Maturana this epistemological question was
> the starting point(!!), he always has considered the Notion of AUTOPOIETIC
> SYSTEMS as a "footnote" to what he calls BIOLOGY OF COGNITION.  Maturana
> concentrates, not in COMPLEXITY ...but in the notion of (OBJECTIVITY).
This
> is why in the field of RADICAL CONSTRUCTIVISM the notions of autopoiesis
are
> so popular (I do not know that this is a positive thing...).  In the case
of
> Dr. Rosen (at least if we follow the trail of published papers) the path
was
> exactly the opposite.  Rosen began with a meticulous study of (M,R)
systems
> ....to arrive at the shores of the study of Complexity.  This similarity
> should be (one day!!) the topic of more than one Ph.D. Dissertation....
>
> 3Bis) the main difference between Autopoietic and (M,R) systems...is the
> notion of discreteness (encapsulation). One of the most fundamental
> properties of Living Systems...is that they are discrete entities....They
> are not "gases" or "fields"...they are "a mouse" or "a bacterium".  The
> formalism of (M,R) systems appears to treat living systems as un-bounded
> entities.
>
> 4) The ideas of Robert Rosen in one hand, and Humberto Maturana ana
> Francisco Varela in the other are (at least for me) very difficult to
grasp.
> This is why I wrote the JBT paper (to explain something to myself)and why
I
> try very hard never to be more that 10 feet away of  the series of ROsen
> papers from 1958-1972.(I lost my ANTICIPATORY SYSTEMS...!.  My bet is that
> both theories/model/welstanschaung are (almost) perfectly complementary.
>
> Thanks for your patience
>
> letelier