Search

I review historical and conceptual aspects of the journal Constructivist Foundations and discuss two new ideas that are currently being implemented: (a) the Constructivist E-Paper Archive (CEPA.INFO), a research tool providing a single-point access to the scholarly literature on constructivism, and (b) the Constructivist Encyclopedia (CE), an open-access publishing initiative where qualified authors with relevant expertise provide an accurate and reliable source of information relevant to constructivist approaches.

Context: In the past three decades, the work of Varela has had an enormous impact on current developmentsin contemporary science. Problem: Varela’s thought was extremely complex and multifaceted, and while someaspects – notably his contributions to the autopoietic theory of living and enactivist approach to cognition – havegained widespread acclaim, others have been ignored or watered down. Method: We identify three dimensionsof Varela’s thought: (a) anti-realism of the “middle way”; (b) anti-foundationalism of the circular onto-epistemology;and (c) ethical/social implications of the circularity. The discussion of these dimensions is followed by a conciseoverview of the individual target articles in this issue and the topics they cover. Finally, we discuss in what ways thearticles extend and relate to Varela’s work. We do this by means of a concrete example: the relation between “enaction”and “enactivism.” Results: We show that the ignoring-cum-watering-down process of Varela’s contributionsto science is at least partly linked to these three dimensions of Varela’s thought. On the basis of our examination,we also find that the more narrow research topics are always interrelated with broader philosophical reflection.Researching into ignored and watered-down aspects of Varela’s work enables us to not only gain fresh insights intoVarela’s overall philosophy and rekindle interest in the topics and themes that have been brushed aside, but also casta fresh light on those that are currently flourishing. Implications: Reviving interest in Varela’s work in toto couldlead to fruitful research and discussion in numerous scientific fields. To illustrate this idea, we delineate, tentatively,three domains – theoretical, empirical, and existential – where Varela’s contribution to philosophy and science couldinstigate a productive exchange of views. Constructivist content: All three dimensions of Varela’s philosophyhave strong affinities with the radical constructivist critique of realism and some of its epistemological and ethicalimplications.

In the past three decades, the work of Francisco Varela has had an enormous impact on current developments in contemporary science. His thought was extremely complex and multifaceted, and while some aspects – notably his contributions to the autopoietic theory of living and enactivist approach to cognition – have gained widespread acclaim, others have been ignored or watered down. In the new special issue that was published today 55 target articles and open peer commentaries shed light on Varela‘s contributions to science.

Context • By proposing to regard objects as "tokens for eigenbehavior," von Foerster's seminal paper opposes the intuitive subject-object dualism of traditional philosophy, which considers objects to be instances of an external world. Problem • We argue that this proposal has two implications, one for epistemology and one for the demarcation between the natural sciences and the humanities. Method • Our arguments are based on insights gained in computational models and from reviewing the contributions to this special issue. Results • Epistemologically, von Foerster's proposal suggests that what is called "reality" could be seen as an ensemble of eigenforms generated by the eigenbehavior that arises in the interaction of multiple dynamics. Regarding science, the contributions to this special issue demonstrate that the concept of eigenbehavior can be applied to a variety of disciplines from the formal and natural sciences to the humanities. Its universal applicability provides a strong argument for transdisciplinarity, and its emphasis on the observer points in the direction of an observer-inclusive science. Implications • Thinking in eigenbehavior may not only have implications for tearing down the barriers between sciences and humanities (although a common methodology based on von Foerster's transdisciplinary approach is still to crystalize), a better understanding of eigenbehaviors may also have profound effects on our understanding of ourselves. This also opens the way to innovative behavior design/modification technologies.

>Context: More than 20 years ago Varela initiated a research program to advance in the scientific study of consciousness, neurophenomenology. > Problem: Has Varela's neurophenomenology, the solution to the "hard problem," been successful? Which issues remain unresolved, and why? > Method: This introduction sketches the progress that has been made since then and links it to the contributions to this special issue. > Results: Instead of a unified research field, today we find a variety of different interpretations and implementations of neurophenomenology. We argue that neurophenomenology needs to give additional attention to its experiential dimension by addressing first-person methods' specific challenges and by rethinking the relationship between the frameworks of the first- and third-person approaches.

Context: Although second-order cybernetics was proposed as a new way of cybernetic investigations around 1970, its general status and its modus operandi are still far from obvious. Problem: We want to provide a new perspective on the scope and the currently available potential of second-order cybernetics within today’s science landscapes. Method: We invited a group of scholars who have produced foundational work on second-order cybernetics in recent years, and organized an open call for new approaches to second-order cybernetics. The accepted contributions are discussed and mapped. We also investigate the relations between second-order cybernetics and second-order science. Results: We present a coherent outlook on the scope of second-order cybernetics today, identify a general methodology of science (with second-order cybernetics as a special instance) and show that second-order cybernetics can be used in a large number of disciplines that go well beyond purely scientific domains. These results are based on anew epistemic mode “from within,” which can be traced back directly to von Foerster. We also arrived at the conclusion that from its early years onwards second-order cybernetics was developed in two different ways, so that second-order cybernetics and second-order science operate in different domains. Implications: Both the coherent perspective of the scope of second-order cybernetics with a new five-part agenda and the outline for a general methodology of science based on a new epistemic mode that was created within and for second-order cybernetics demonstrate the growing importance of reflexivity in science, which, so far, has not been widely recognized.

In the light of its heterogeneous nature, radical constructivism (RC) was recently referred to as a tool for problem solving. Can it re-invent itself to have a future as a major paradigm? To answer this question, RC is defined in terms of three increasingly larger sets of theoretical core principles and then aligned with possible empirical, methodological, and programmatic content to check its applicability for Gerhard Schurz's definition of paradigms. Based on Peter Cariani's list of intellectual, organizational, and social factors that help intellectual movements to sustain themselves and grow, it is pointed out which elements are already present and which still need to be developed. I argue that RC must be defined as paradigm rather than as a problem-solving tool in order to attract the researchers necessary to make it a self-sustaining community. As such, I believe it has a future in a variety of disciplines, including those that are traditionally linked with it such as communication science and family therapy, as well as new research domains such as quantum mechanics and computational theory.

Context: The journal Constructivist Foundations celebrates ten years of publishing articles on constructivist approaches, in particular radical constructivism. Problem: In order to preserve the sustainability of radical constructivism and regain its appeal to new generations of researchers, we set up a new course of action for and with the radical constructivist community to study its innovative potential. This new avenue is "second-order science." Method: We specify two motivations of second-order science, i.e., the inclusion of the observer, and self-reflexivity that allows second-order science to operate on the products of normal or first-order science. Also, we present a short overview of the contributions that we have collected for this inaugural issue on second-order science. Results: These six initial contributions demonstrate the potential of the new set of approaches to second-order science across several disciplines. Implications: Second-order science is believed to be a cogent concept in the evolution of science, leading to a new wave of innovations, novel experiments and a much closer relationship with current research in the cognitive neurosciences in particular, and with evolutionary and complexity theories in general.

Context: Many recent research areas such as human cognition and quantum physics call the observer-independence of traditional science into question. Also, there is a growing need for self-reflexivity in science, i.e., a science that reflects on its own outcomes and products. Problem: We introduce the concept of second-order science that is based on the operation of re-entry. Our goal is to provide an overview of this largely unexplored science domain and of potential approaches in second-order fields. Method: We provide the necessary conceptual groundwork for explorations in second-order science, in which we discuss the differences between first- and second-order science and where we present a roadmap for second-order science. The article operates mainly with conceptual differentiations such as the separation between three seemingly identical concepts such as Science II, Science 2.0 and second-order science. Results: Compared with first-order science, the potential of second-order science lies in 1. higher levels of novelty and innovations, 2. higher levels of robustness and 3. wider integration as well as higher generality. As first-order science advances, second-order science, with re-entry as its basic operation, provides three vital functions for first-order science, namely a rich source of novelty and innovation, the necessary quality control and greater integration and generality. Implications: Second-order science should be viewed as a major expansion of traditional scientific fields and as a scientific breakthrough towards a new wave of innovative research. Constructivist content: Second-order science has strong ties with radical constructivism, which can be qualified as the most important root/origin of second-order science. Moreover, it will be argued that a new form of cybernetics is needed to cope with the new problems and challenges of second-order science.

Context: Ernst von Glasersfeld introduced radical constructivism in 1974 as a new interpretation of Jean Piaget's constructivism to give new meanings to the notions of knowledge, communication, and reality. He also claimed that RC would affect traditional theories of education. Problem: After 40 years it has become necessary to review and evaluate von Glasersfeld's claim. Also, has RC been successful in taking the "social turn" in educational research, or is it unable to go beyond "private worlds? Method: We provide an overview of contributed articles that were written with the aim of showing whether RC has an impact on educational research, and we discuss three core issues: Can RC account for inter-individual aspects? Is RC a theory of learning? And should Piaget be regarded as a radical constructivist? Results: We argue that the contributed papers demonstrate the efficiency of the application of RC to educational research and practice. Our argumentation also shows that in RC it would be misleading to claim a dichotomy between cognition and social interaction (rather, social constructivism is a radical constructivism), that RC does not contain a theory of mathematics learning any more or less than it contains a theory of mathematics teaching, and that Piaget should not be considered a mere trivial constructivist. Implications: Still one of the most challenging influences on educational research and practice, RC is ready to embark on many further questions, including its relationship with other constructivist paradigms, and to make progress in the social dimension.

(First paragraph) Reality (German: Wirklichkeit, French: réalité) has been defined in widely different ways, ranging from denoting an (ontological) transexperiential realm to referring to the totality of one's (subjective) experiences. Yet others consider reality to be the (social) realm of things and events created and caused by humans.

For a realist, nature embodies the ultimate arbiter, while for social constructivists nature is the projection of social interests. In this paper, the highly ambiguous term "nature" is discussed from yet another position, i.e., radical constructivism. It is argued that this position is incompatible with realism and, for reasons of consistency, also with social constructivism. Furthermore, from an ethical perspective, the radical constructivist conception of nature shifts responsibility further away from God, nature, and society to the individual.

Context: Most constructivist discourse is situated at the philosophical-conceptual level, where arguments appeal to the intuition of the reader, while formal-computational models have only been taken into account to a very limited degree so far. Problem: Two types of problems need to be addressed: Synthetically, can constructivist concepts be turned into actual computational implementations? Can these be further conceptual developments in constructivist theory as such, or are they just an application thereof? Conceptually, does the notion of computation square with constructivist approaches at all? Method: Paradigmatically, we discuss the meaning of “computational” in cognitive agents that comply with constructivist concepts. Also, we summarize the contributions. Results: From a constructivist point of view, the concept of “computational model” is ambiguous and depends on whether it is used in the sense of the computational(ist) theory of mind or simply as a tool. Implications: The insights presented in the contributions to this special issue point in the direction of a computational extension of constructivist approaches as well as a constructivist extension to computational approaches. However, while many of the questions we posed were discussed in the contributions and open peer commentaries, some of them were largely neglected and thus are subject to further discussion.

Personal Note

Context: Non-dualism suggests a new way of utilizing language without the assumption of categorically extralinguistic objects denoted by language. Problem: What is the innovative potential, what is the special value of non-dualism for science? Is non-dualism a fruitful conceptual revision or just a philosophical thought experiment with no or little significance for science? Method: We provide a concise introduction to non-dualism's central new proposals and an overview of the papers. Results: Fourteen contributors show how this way of thinking and speaking can be operationalized creatively, but also address some of its boundaries. Implications: Since not all of the aspects and problems highlighted for discussion in the original Call for Papers were answered satisfactorily, further research is necessary. For example, research is needed on the relationship between dualism's distinction between object language and metalanguage on the one hand and non-dualism's distinction between descriptions so far and descriptions from now on on the other; or on the infinite regress allegations by non-dualism against dualism. Constructivist content: Some authors show that non-dualist thinking is anti-essentialist, in a similar way as constructivist thinking. Some also show that comparable questions arise; for example, the question of whether non-dualism denies the material world (containing extralinguistic objects).

[for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], 15. Grazer Konferenz – Qualität der Lehre: Teaching and Learning – expanding our resources

[for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], 15. Grazer Konferenz – Qualität der Lehre: Teaching and Learning – expanding our resources

Context: Humberto Maturana has generated a coherent and extensive explicatory matrix that encompasses his research in neurophysiology, cognition, language, emotion, and love. Purpose: Can we formulate a map of Maturana's work in a manner that is consistent with the systemic matrix it represents and that serves as an aid for understanding Maturana's philosophy without reifying its representation? Method: Our arguments are based on experience gained from teaching and presentations. Results: We present a map that that represents Maturana's main contributions as clusters of notions clustered according to how we see them to be related to each other as a projection of a matrix of ideas onto a two-dimensional space. We claim that there are many paths through these clusters of ideas. Though ideas relevant to individuals are obtained from various partial perspectives, a deep understanding of any element is dependent on an understanding of the whole matrix. Furthermore, we summarize the contributions to this special issue on Maturana. Key words: Generative process, matrix of concepts, systemic, conceptual map, pedagogy

(Excerpt) Die Lebensgeschichte der Autoren macht deutlich, dass ihr gemeinsames Buch keineswegs ein zufälliges Produkt ist, sondern aus dem Zusammentreffen von philosophischer, ökonomischer und politischer Einsicht hervorgegangen ist. Ausgehend von den Versprechungen der AI führte sie zu der ernüchternden, aber auch neue Chancen bietenden Erkenntnis, dass Sprache und Kognition keine mechanistisch-realistisch zu erklärenden Phänomene sind, sondern einer konstruktivistischen Herangehensweise bedürfen.