Dualism & Complementarity as Intellectual foundation?

Flat oppositional dualism is a product&generator of our language/category systems  ( and often  automated in designed abstract and physical systems) 

Complementarity (on the other hand...) relates to natural organisation. In many situations, understanding the 'difference' gives us a chance of intelligent progress...and cooperation...

Complementarity is inclusive , oppositional dualism isn't...

Oppositional dualism can be-appear 'functional' as a part of a productive process. but the value of the productive process in terms of its environment and all the  subjective needs it is intended to fulfill cannot be measured simply in those terms...

Such issues form the basis of intellectual thought and must be included if an intelligent an potentially progressive discussion is to take place

References (to add)

Foucault M

Beer S 

Checkland  P

Fairclough N

Boundary Critique -Ulrich

Furthermore, comprehensively reflective practice needs researchers to address a number of issues that form part of what I have very briefly introduced above (in Section 4) under the label, boundary critique. Examples of boundary issues to be examined are: Whose concerns are to be considered and whose not? What “facts” are relevant and what others may not be so relevant? How is “improvement” to be defined and to be measured? What stakeholders are to be involved? What is the appropriate time horizon to be considered for identifying potential side-effects and long-term consequences? and so on. Since today the concept of boundary critique is not yet an integral part of research training, contemporary research practice tends to neglect these issues. Even though some of the earlier-mentioned frameworks for methodology choice do give a place to boundary critique, the rising popularity of systematic methodology choice, as was to be expected, has done little to change the situation. The reason is simple: not even the most systematic framework of methodology choice can make sure that such issues are properly addressed in practice.

Closure and Discourse Communities

If discourse analysis dismiss macro analysis for micro of discourse communities?


How do we decide the boundary of the discourse community?
What about its relevent environment?
(read Fairclough)


According to poststructural


Isn't such closure necessarily structural thinking which has supposedly been abandoned?


re Layder 233-236

Criticism: Performative Utterance : Post Structuralism

"The fact is that writing can no longer designate an operation of recording, notation, representation, "depiction" (as the classics would say); rather, it designates exactly what linguists, referring to Oxford
philosophy, call a performative, a rare verbal form (exclusively given in the first person and in the present tense) in which the enunciation has no other content (contains no other proposition) than the act by which it is uttered -
something like the I declare of kings, the I sing of ancient poets"

"Once the Author is removed, the claim to deciper a text becomes quite futile. To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on the text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing. Such a conception suits criticism very well, the latter then allotting itself the important task of discovering the Author (or its hypostasid:sciety, history,psyche,liberty)beneth the work:whern theAuthor has been found, the texy is 'explained'-victory to the critic."


Barthes I.M.T. 147

Closure and Enquiry

Human Perceptual Capacity - limitation of the information receptor facilities. (Simon)
Linguistic limitations - precision,capacity,clarity, (+structure)
Educational-  bounded nature of acquired knowledge sets,  that ultimately condition the structure and development of the conceptual framework though which the enquirer  operates
CulturalNorms/Development - feedback from percieved authorities
Weltanschauung :WorldView (identity?)
Roland Barthes (1915-1980) added a third possible step in world view or Weltanschauung in which metacognitive schema such as liberty, sexuality, autonomy, etc. create a framework of reference from which more abstract meanings may be attributed to the signs, depending on the context.


Practical aspects- constraints, conditions and influences of the 'real world'
D'arcy
Paradigm - Kuhn
Prediction/Induction -Hume

Distinctions and Closure

Discrimination between a class of phenomena and the complement of that class. (PC)
A distinction splits the perceived world in two parts, "That" and "This, or "environment" or "system", or "us" and "Them" (IESC, EA)
It is the very fundamental act of system theory, the very act of
Distinctions coexists with purposes. (IESC)
Certainly, it is the most fundamental act of system theory, the very act of defining the system presently of interst, of distinguishing it from its environment (EA)

Relations:

	autopoietic system
	consensual distinction
	domain
	observer
	observer_community.htm
	self/non-self
	Spencer-Brown's Law of form

Encyclopedia Autopoietica "Unity distinction ... is not an abstract notion of purely conceptual validity for descriptive or analytical purposes, but is an operative notion referring to the process through which a unity becomes asserted or defined: the conditions that specify a unity determine its phenomenology." (Varela, 1979, p. 31; cf. Maturana & Varela, 1980, p. 96) The two senses in which this term is employed both refer to this process. They differ in that one (1.) refers to the process by which a unity is defined by an observer, while the other (2.) invokes a unity's self-distinction through the topological effect(s) of its organizational closure. 1. The act or process by which an observer recognizes a unity. Paralleling Spencer Brown (1969), Maturana and Varela use the term "distinction" to denote -- "...the pointing to a unity by performing an operation which defines its boundaries and separates it from a background." (Maturana, 1975, p. 325) Varela (1979a, p. 84) explains: "A distinction splits the world into two parts, 'that' and 'this', or 'environment' and 'system', or 'us' and 'them', etc. ..Certainly, it is the most fundamental act of system theory, the very act of defining the system presently of interest, of distinguishing it from its environment." This parallels in spirit the statements ofBateson (Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity, New York: Bantam, 1988, p. 29): "...(P)erception operates only upon difference. All receipt of information is necessarily the receipt of news of difference..." Varela differentiates this sense of the term from 2. (below) by labeling it conceptual (1979, p. 30). Distinction effects a complementary recognition of both unity and background. Through distinction, the observer "...specifies a unity as an entity distinct from a background and abackground as the domain in which an entity is distinguished. An operation of distinction, however, is also a prescription of a procedure which, if carried out, severs a unity from a background, regardless of the procedure of distinction and regardless of whether the procedure is carried out by an observer or by another entity." (Maturana & Varela, 1980, p. xxii) Distinction constrains the domain of discourse, because the act of distinguishing specifies (even if only implicitly) both something referred to and the context in which it is manifest. Because a unity is brought forth only through distinction, "...each time we refer to a unity in our descriptions, we are implying the operation of distinction that defines it and makes it possible." (Maturana & Varela, 1992, p. 40) 2. The act or process by which a unity effects or asserts its own separability from its ambience or background. This sense of "distinction" highlights the manner in which an autonomous / autopoietic system establishes, as the topological manifestation of its organizational closure, a literal or functional boundary delineating its extent with respect to its ambience. Varela differentiates this sense of the term from 1. above by labeling it physical (e.g., when realized in the physical space). (1979, pp. 30-31)Cf. criterion of distinction, unity "A distinction is constructed by the observer in interaction with the system. As such, a distinction is always to a certain degree subjective, depending on the goalthe observer has in mind while modeling the system, but is not arbitrary, because not all distinctions will allow the observer to find coherence betweenobservations performed on the system. Since all phenomena in the universe are by definition different, the number of potential distinctions is infinite. Arepresentation of (part of) the universe is necessarily finite, and, hence, the number of distinctions an observer will make will be infinitely smaller than the total number of distinctions he or she could make" (1990a, p. 427) Heylighen

http://www.imprint.co.uk/thesaurus/distinction.htm

Values and Truth Claims: Post-Structuralism? (Tutorial)

Are values always based on truth claims? ( Need examples (probably not?))

If they are, and if a post-structuralism insists on the abandonment of truth claims then it must be value free?

(In tutorial - It's suggested post structural research is Value Laden not Value Free - Example of )

( in the sense of taking a position -  ?)


Also Actor Networks - are they inevitably positivist? (Social Constructivism)
(Could you depict effects on self definition?)

Glossary of terms (add refs)

Context: wider environment of knowledge claim? (relates to closure)(Bryson)

Closure : Relates to  ontology, epistemology; pragmatic selection of "Knowledge" in the context of open systems, undecidability etc

(Postmodernism,  Jayaratna & D'arcy, Habermas)

Reification: association of state of identification (performative?) with specific form of consumption (product)

(Marx?)

Performative: concious choice of identification, c.f unconcious identification (inherited, manipulated)
(Austin, Butler)

Random Expressive Flow: allowance of a stream of expression (vocal/movement) without conceptual criticism

(Deleuze)

Ideology: Hidden assumptions inherent if narrative?

Narrative: Storyline...
(Jameson)

Meta Narrative: Overriding background narrative taken as true (historical?) context?

Meta Language: Higher level language that talks about object language(that assumes truth).