Dear all,
I try to lend a hand to James in the management of doubts and creative instincts born and raised in recent days. I am confident that he did not take.
First problem, the definition of a working method and the restriction of the research field through a proper definition of the meanings of four key words (and concepts cross). In the first instance, I can not help but ask everyone to submit their respective views on the possible dichotomies, possible limits on the morphologies of the four uncertain terms that they are, remember: people, tools, bodies, machines. Chased in order to avoid unnecessary debate between those who have access to the media through more or less rapid, and who addresses the question verbally, I would suggest to anyone who wants to send four beautiful (and short) definitions, possibly documented by bibliography (always nice and short). Napoleon's armies moved with tissue paper of no more than one line, we can make a magazine with little additional card. This will perhaps catch up alongside the resolution of epistemological uncertainty in the drafting of the first elements of the charges levied by James on January 19 for the coming week.
What matters is that the work is put at the intersection of two key terms in order to create a minimum short-circuit reference and help give a more or less dense mass in the making. To help visualization, I imagine a simple two-dimensional grid created by the same four words put on the ordinate on the abscissa. The definition of the respective research themes and meanings of key terms will give a depth to this structure. Depth varied and, when viewed from different angles, changing, which is a leap, but so effective, I think, to describe what we do. According
rock (and pragmatic corollaries): James has started a blog to help manage the increasing traffic of email. I know there are technical and ideological resistance to the use of product marketing for large companies to storage media. But I suggest to everyone to attend and to pass there, first of all their contributions. This avoids forcing James to worry every time that everyone has received the latest e-mail Tom or Dick, and you can easily trace the evolution of the discussion on a particular theme. Mean, In short, the blog as a container in which each piece of paper magically deposited is stored and easily retrievable. You must then retrieve the email invitation sent to the blog by James and follow the instructions. After registering to use the blog will be easier for the management of their email.
Third point: the limit of ten minutes for the submission of their progress to the rest of the group and, hopefully many, he asked, from my point of view, a very high professional and ethical value. The idea, as noted by James, was to use the short distance to give this a fully functional version of their work to their research, directing small presentation to the identification of possible synergies useful to others than to ourselves. This would, in short, to say a few words to those around us that, compared to the previous month, have made discoveries that may be useful or that other than by reference to a subject they know that they are dealing. Supply, absolutely free, a suggestion: I do not know what your academic experience, but I happened to observe a similar method only once. Rather far from Bologna, however. The ten minutes are also a very useful exercise in short, human damage ...
At this point the bored can retire with a clear conscience. From here on I will try to respond to the arguments of Raul and Nicola on the definition of technology on which we should leave. The distinction mentioned by Raul on January 19 and resumed on the book by Pierpaolo Antonello (Nicholas, 28 December), between techne and techneia to me is interesting but also very misleading with respect to our work. For two reasons. One, the most obvious, is that this kind of distinction is born and is resolved only within the so-called humanistic world. The mathematical and natural sciences have done instead of non-resolution of this dichotomy their strength, without theoretical proclamation - and probably without the appropriate application of critical thinking - making a continuous overlap of the two planes, a useful development of the other. Just remember, for example, the birth of experimental science as it is understood today was the experience of the verification of theoretical models (phase in which the quotient of craftsmanship is very high, the great scientists were especially great Renaissance and modern geeks) to suggest the emergence of a theory able to measure their effectiveness (theory) in order to prove their worth and move on to a further stage of conceptualization and verification of the model. Moreover, the theory of numbers has to provide an assessment of the error, both in the prediction and estimation results is that of actual measurement. It is true that only very few physicists, even among the most famous, can be called great great experimenters and theorists, but this distinction can be appreciated only within the narrow world of science, where the margins are well known and transient loads of equal weight: outside from this world they have no reason to exist and in fact few would know the distinction between Einstein and Fermi-purpose, the teoricissimi Heisenberg or Dirac and many lesser-known researchers who collaborated with ...
In this mix of technology and technology needed, however, enhanced the social and economic reasons that have led to major scientific discoveries (on which topic better not go into now) the humanistic knowledge seems not to have noticed. This seems to me, is just one aspect of that gap is still open between scientific knowledge and the humanities that continuously seeks to bridge using two different methods: the creation of a "metaphysical" progress of each discipline, operations such as Deleuze in "The fold" is trying to build castles necessary to the explanation of the unexplained technological progress starting from Leibniz or the treacherous and unilateral redefinition of the limits of scientific knowledge (or scientific knowledge), which is driven back by the edge created fictitious ad hoc based on archaic notions of knowledge itself. The problem, and here I come to talk to Raul, is that both methods, denying the possibility of confrontation and mingling between the two forms of learning, prevent the formation of a critical knowledge and informed about the world around us, so steeped in technology (and therefore technique), and the sedimentation of a common substratum of consciousness, then the ability to process it in a creative way, and then finally to provide the artistic creation elements "generative" that would allow
Read in this way, with many avant-gardes , beginning (in fact) from our future, is colossal blunders of interpretation, attempts generous and never fully resolved to seize the thread of a skein that unfolds while on your own.
I hope I did not give an idea of \u200b\u200bthe problem too progressive and consequential. Those "generative elements" worry me.
I sleep and go to bed.
Good night, Marco
