Just a quick question, Martin.
I looked at the site you recommended very briefly, focusing in
particular on the checklist provided to determine whether or not a system
is autopoetic, and although I did like this particular checklist item:
"properties of the system to be explained are generated by relations of the
components of the system and are not to be found among the properties of
those components." (Maturana, 1978, p. 30),
the number of references in the 6-point checklist to requirements such as
"unity", "discrete boundaries", "mechanistic", and an "observer" by whom
everything observed is "said" (according to the site's home page), were
somewhat unsettling, and surprisingly evocative of Cartesian thinking. The
image of Earth held in the palm of a human hand which is clearly outside it
(the observer?), was also quite startling.
Did I get the wrong impression? What are the differences between a systems
theory view of the world and the Cartesian view? Are there any
similarities?
Jude Edminster
University of South Florida
jedmins1@tampabay.rr.com
|