Prof. Jordan I really enjoyed this podcast. I wanted to ask you that how as a student of literature will I use this theory in analyzing my text. Because as literary scholar I usually apply my theories when I'm reading a text be it a book or a poem or a story and how is it that I would use this theory in the same context. And another question is that when you talk reality in terms of subjective reality and objective reality does it fit in the context of literature. When I take a novel for example how do I divide it in objective reality and subjective reality. The writings within and the places it transports a person to, where do they stand in context of reality. I would really like to know your perspective on it.
Fantastic questions! As for how to "use" WST to analyze a text, it is first important to understand that WST conceptualizes al systems/things/stabilities as embodiments of context. As a result, all systems/things/stabilities are necessarily "about" they contexts they embody. In short, they are embodied "aboutness." They are embodied meaning. From this perspective, all texts and images ARE embodied aboutness. Thus, reading a text is an exercise in allowing one's aboutness to be modulated by the aboutness embodied in the text. All of this language I've just used completely avoids the objective-subjective distinction. By trapping phenomena such as consciousness, meaning, and experience in the "subjective" side of the subjective-objective binary, those who utilize such binaries are stuck trying to explain how the "objective" world becomes meaningful (i.e., becomes subjective). According to WST, this is a misguided way of thinking. Everything is meaning. Everything is aboutness. Looking at a cloud, a pool of clear water, or text, ALL modulate one's aboutness. I hope this answer was useful!
prof. scott do you think at the pace that technology is advancing in this current age and time we will soon be able to bridge the epistemic gap and curb our curiosity of wild systems of the world by having discovered all there is. is there an end to this web of wild systems of humankind in your opinion?
I LOVE this question! I would first ask that everyone who reads this question, answer it for themselves first, then, perhaps read what I'm about to say. Wild Systems Theory asserts that the notion of an epistemic gap between self-sustaining systems (i.e., wild systems) and their contexts in an ASSUMPTION created by those who believe reality divides into objective and subjective properties. According to WST, wild systems (i.e., self-sustaining energy transformation systems) NECESSARILY embody the contexts in which they sustain themselves. My bones, muscles, and brain are an embodiment of the constraints that have to be addressed to propel a mass, as a whole, through a gravity field. As a result, my bones, muscles, and brain are NECESSARILY ABOUT each other and how they collectively manage locomotion. There is no objective-subjective gap between my embodiments and what they are ABOUT. Thus, wild systems don't "perceive" or "detect" the world as much as they "modulate" the contexts they are embedded within, while the context simultaneously modulates them. At not point is there an "aboutness" gap. So, as science continues to develop increasingly coherent descriptions of the contexts we are embedded within, those descriptions do not tell me how reality "truly is" across an assumed epistemic gap as much as they provide increasingly sophisticated descriptions of context that afford me more and more sophisticated forms of modulation. Hope this made any sense at all. Feel free to respond.
Proffesssor, as 'Wild system theory', is being discussed. One understands and sees that it is expendable in nature. Allowing and facilitating a discipline to transcend in this movement. Where upon engaging to a broader sense of applying this theory , what are the levels that measures this theory?
Thanks for asking! I have referred to WST as a transdisciplinary framework because the notion of "embodied context" can be used by all disciplines. A variable in an equation, a controlled chemical reaction, and a piece of graphic art are ALL embodiments of context. Hope this answer made sense!
Professor Jordan I wanted to ask if you think the embodiment of context stays constant with whatever the axiom of socio political happenings are going on around the world and if there can be any major shift inside each one of us if we come in control of it.
Great question! "Socio political happenings" are an extremely robust aspect of the contexts we embody. What stays "constant" for wild systems is their status as embodiments of context. How they embody various contexts will differ from system to system. I hope this answer made any sense. Happy to continue the conversation!
Prof. Jordan I really enjoyed this podcast. I wanted to ask you that how as a student of literature will I use this theory in analyzing my text. Because as literary scholar I usually apply my theories when I'm reading a text be it a book or a poem or a story and how is it that I would use this theory in the same context.
And another question is that when you talk reality in terms of subjective reality and objective reality does it fit in the context of literature. When I take a novel for example how do I divide it in objective reality and subjective reality. The writings within and the places it transports a person to, where do they stand in context of reality. I would really like to know your perspective on it.
Fantastic questions! As for how to "use" WST to analyze a text, it is first important to understand that WST conceptualizes al systems/things/stabilities as embodiments of context. As a result, all systems/things/stabilities are necessarily "about" they contexts they embody. In short, they are embodied "aboutness." They are embodied meaning. From this perspective, all texts and images ARE embodied aboutness. Thus, reading a text is an exercise in allowing one's aboutness to be modulated by the aboutness embodied in the text.
All of this language I've just used completely avoids the objective-subjective distinction. By trapping phenomena such as consciousness, meaning, and experience in the "subjective" side of the subjective-objective binary, those who utilize such binaries are stuck trying to explain how the "objective" world becomes meaningful (i.e., becomes subjective). According to WST, this is a misguided way of thinking. Everything is meaning. Everything is aboutness. Looking at a cloud, a pool of clear water, or text, ALL modulate one's aboutness. I hope this answer was useful!
prof. scott do you think at the pace that technology is advancing in this current age and time we will soon be able to bridge the epistemic gap and curb our curiosity of wild systems of the world by having discovered all there is. is there an end to this web of wild systems of humankind in your opinion?
I LOVE this question! I would first ask that everyone who reads this question, answer it for themselves first, then, perhaps read what I'm about to say. Wild Systems Theory asserts that the notion of an epistemic gap between self-sustaining systems (i.e., wild systems) and their contexts in an ASSUMPTION created by those who believe reality divides into objective and subjective properties. According to WST, wild systems (i.e., self-sustaining energy transformation systems) NECESSARILY embody the contexts in which they sustain themselves. My bones, muscles, and brain are an embodiment of the constraints that have to be addressed to propel a mass, as a whole, through a gravity field. As a result, my bones, muscles, and brain are NECESSARILY ABOUT each other and how they collectively manage locomotion. There is no objective-subjective gap between my embodiments and what they are ABOUT. Thus, wild systems don't "perceive" or "detect" the world as much as they "modulate" the contexts they are embedded within, while the context simultaneously modulates them. At not point is there an "aboutness" gap. So, as science continues to develop increasingly coherent descriptions of the contexts we are embedded within, those descriptions do not tell me how reality "truly is" across an assumed epistemic gap as much as they provide increasingly sophisticated descriptions of context that afford me more and more sophisticated forms of modulation. Hope this made any sense at all. Feel free to respond.
Proffesssor, as 'Wild system theory', is being discussed.
One understands and sees that it is expendable in nature. Allowing and facilitating a discipline to transcend in this movement.
Where upon engaging to a broader sense of applying this theory , what are the levels that measures this theory?
Thanks for asking! I have referred to WST as a transdisciplinary framework because the notion of "embodied context" can be used by all disciplines. A variable in an equation, a controlled chemical reaction, and a piece of graphic art are ALL embodiments of context. Hope this answer made sense!
Professor Jordan I wanted to ask if you think the embodiment of context stays constant with whatever the axiom of socio political happenings are going on around the world and if there can be any major shift inside each one of us if we come in control of it.
Great question! "Socio political happenings" are an extremely robust aspect of the contexts we embody. What stays "constant" for wild systems is their status as embodiments of context. How they embody various contexts will differ from system to system. I hope this answer made any sense. Happy to continue the conversation!