Last week was so interesting. Some weeks you just get exposed to so many different ideas that it’s trouble to integrate them. I tried to articulate what’s been coming up as a result. It’s several difficult questions.
- Assuming trust is necessary for effective context management, how does one organize sociotechnical systems to provide social equity in a sustainable way?
- Assuming an ecology of scientific practices, what are appropriate selection mechanisms (or criteria)? Are they transcendent or immanent?
- Given the contradictory character of emotional reality, how can psychic integration occur without rendering one dead or at least very boring?
- Are there limitations of the computational paradigm imposed by data science as an emerging pan-constructivist practice coextensive with the limits of cognitive or phenomenological primitives?
- I think that two or three of these questions above may be in essence the same question. In that they can be formalized into the same mathematical problem, and the solution is the same in each case.
- I really do have to read Isabelle Stengers and Nancy Nersessian. Based on the signals I’m getting, they seem to be the people most on top of their game in terms of understanding how science happens.
- I’ve been assuming that trust relations are interpersonal but I suppose they can be interorganizational as well, or between a person and an organization. This gets back to a problem I struggle with in a recurring way: how do you account for causal relationships between a macro-organism (like an organization or company) and a micro-organism? I think it’s when there are entanglements between these kinds of entities that we are inclined to call something an “ecosystem”, though I learned recently that this use of the term bothers actual ecologists (no surprise there). The only things I know about ecology are from reading Ulanowicz papers, but those have been so on point and beautiful that I feel I can proceed with confidence anyway.
- I don’t think there’s any way to get around having at least a psychological model to work with when looking at these sorts of things. A recurring an promising angle is that of psychic integration. Carl Jung, who has inspired clinical practices that I can personally vouch for, and Gregory Bateson both understood the goal of personal growth to be integration of disparate elements. I’ve learned recently from Turner’s The Democratic Surround that Bateson was a more significant historical figure than I thought, unless Turner’s account of history is a glorification of intellectuals that appeal to him, which is entirely possible. Perhaps more importantly to me, Bateson inspired Ulanowicz, and so these theories are compatible; Bateson was also a cyberneticist following Wiener, who was prescient and either foundational to contemporary data science or a good articulator of its roots. But there is also a tie-in to constructivist epistemology. DiSessa’s epistemology, building on Piaget but embracing what he calls the computational metaphor, understands the learning of math and physics as the integration of phenomenological primitives.
- The purpose of all this is ultimately protocol design.
- This does not pertain directly to my dissertation, though I think it’s useful orienting context.