The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe

No. Maturana sees all interactions as "structural coupling" which for humans often involves a behavior he calls "languaging". Coupled lower structures constitute elements in a higher level structure. It is a "nested systems" approach.

Excluding the "religion" BS, I'll take that as a compliment !
However, to anybody who is au fait with sociological discussions of "modernity" involving "systems theory", I might be merely using Maturana as one pedagogical device.

Well, now, ain't that *special*?

Ya know, for some reason, not exactly sure what, I don't like the sound of this Maturana guy. Maybe it's because his first name is "Humberto," which evokes very disgusting images.

Then again, maybe it's because:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis

You should take it as a compliment, because the experience of years demonstrates that your rhetorical skills don't get any better than that. You're peddling BS when you talk about systems theory, because there is no system about which to theorize. You rely on appeals to authority, and those "authorities" to whom you appeal have absolutely no underpinning for the BS they peddle other than dubious ipse dixit pronouncements.

I am au fait with snake oil salesmen and other flim-flam men. If you cannot demonstrate the origin of the language users whose use of language creates the pathetic mind game you call reality, your entire house of cards collapses and is revealed for what it is--an demand for the superstitious acceptance of a blind faith paradigm. It is your religion, whether or not you are sufficiently honest to admit it.

Well done birds of a feather ! (aspiring vultures).

Of course if you havent got an original thought in your head about the topic what else is there to do but resort to belligerent wittering or googling "criticisms of fresco references"?

Next dance anybody?

You continue to fail to provide even bad logic as an underpinning for your claims about reality. You are no different than the religious hucksters of the world. It's rather pathetic to see you sneer about belligerence.

I make no claims about "reality" other than to say it is a word used in specific social contexts to denote consensual agreement about "what is the case". If you choose to avoid my contexts you have nothing to say. You are like a tourist without currency or a phrase book.

Ah, but that is not all the claim you make. You have consistently over the years claimed that there is no other reality than the "contextual" and "consensual" statements of linguistic interactions. You have consistently denied that there is an objective and concrete reality apart from your silly word games. If you now deny that, and attempt to assert that all you have ever tried to do is to examine certain contexts in which reality is discussed, you are, not to put to fine a point on it, a liar. This isn't about "avoiding context," this is about your consistent and persistent assertion that reality only exists withing contexts. That is your everlasting insistence on conflating descriptions of reality with reality itself.

White man speak with forked ear !

As always, you have no cogent, coherent response to the core objection to the BS you peddle.

I 'll translate for you.

Naive realist man ignorant of die Kehre in philosophy will read with naive realist eyes. You are the equivalent of a scientist stuck with Newton in a post Einstein era.

Fresco, you still seem totally unable to differentiate between an understanding or description of REALITY...and REALITY itself.

Either that or you are hard headed...and unwilling to acknowledge when you are wrong. But who would ever think that about you!

The pragmatist view developed post-Nieztche is that is that there is no way of ultimately distinguishing between "appearance" and "reality" so the distinction is functionally meaningless. The linguistic philosophers post Wittgenstein agree with that in that all words, like "appearance" and "reality" take their meaning from their consensual usage in particular contexts.

I've been into all that countless times. You have vested interests in maintaining your dogma of absolute "is-ness", and that (amongst other things) prevents you from understanding the volumes written in establishing the above position. So you resort to facile arguments about "reliance on authority". Right and wrong don't come into it, only degrees of understanding.

And there, as usual, endeth the lesson.

Like, who knew, eh?

I LOVE lessons!

I also LOVE high-falutin words like "endeth!"

Never change, Fresco.

Setanta is just a hard-ass who won't put a "fine point" on it. I have heard others who do put a fine point on it.

They just say you're "intellectually dishonest." That's a lot better than "liar," isn't it?

Say, are we having fun yet?

Yeah...it has got to be: "...you are hard headed...and unwilling to acknowledge when you are wrong. "

The REALITY, Fresco, is whatever actually IS.

That may be a function of "appearance"...and it may not.

Everything you are saying indicates to anyone not unconscious...that you simply cannot (or will not) distinguish REALITY...and considerations or descriptions of REALITY.

Get that Wittgenstein guy here in A2K...and I'll set him on the right course.

Glad we are back where we usually are, Fresco...with you showing yourself to be too hard-headed and unwilling to acknowledge you are wrong.

I'm havin' a ball!

...and chain !