> From: "Hugh G. Blaze" <hughblaze@hotmail.com> > Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:17:51 EDT > To: O.Koppius@fbk.eur.nl, 313@hyperreal.org > Subject: Re: [313] The epistemology of techno > > Well, duh. > >> >> Re: what is the definition of techno? >> >> One has to ask first, what is a definition? A definition is a label >> attached to a phenomena and it does not convey any attributes other than >> those relevant for the phenomenon under examination to have >> discriminative validity (I choose not to engage in the raging parsimony >> debate of definitions and axioms here). In order for a definition to >> have meaning, it has to be universally agreed upon by the relevant >> actors. For these actors, such a definition has utilitarian value. This >> value consists for instance of reduced communicational ambiguities by >> creating a body of knowledge that can subsequently be used for further >> advancements and refinements of the original concept (see also note 1). >> >> Note that a definition cannot be true or false, for any potential >> falsification process would consist entirely of (non-)acceptance by the >> relevant actors and thus cannot be considered a falsification process in >> the strict Popperian sense, since for all practical purposes, the >> definition acceptance process makes definitions more akin to axioms, >> which by definition cannot be falsified. >> >> The acceptance process by the relevant actors is rarely explicit and can >> be best understood as an implicitly socially constructed process between >> the relevant actors. However, quite often it is not *all* relevant >> actors whose actions are consequential in this process, but only a >> nucleolus of actors with a high network centrality whose actions >> constitute milestones in the definitional acceptance process. Yet rarely >> are such actions effective immediately, given their dependency on the >> receiving parties' attitude and reaction, thus rendering any decision >> process by the nucleolic actors regarding their intended actions in this >> process boundedly rational. >> >> The highly amorphous nature of this definitional acceptance process >> makes tracing and explicitizing it a problem of an intractible nature. >> Hence, the social constructivist paradigm argues that there does not >> exist a universal definition of any phenomenon, since the social >> circumstances are not constant, yet they are crucial to the definition >> acceptance process. This implies that definitions are potentially >> subject to variations over time, thus contradicting the single most >> essential aspect of a definition: its universal consistency through time >> and space. >> >> When taken to the extreme, this paradigm implies that as many >> definitions can exist as there are actors and even the staunchest social >> constructivists have realized that this is an untenable position from a >> realistic point of view. To avoid this, they have utilized the concept >> of the Anthropic Principle, which in its original form can be stated as: >> "A phenomenon is the way it is, because we are there to observe it in >> that way". This establishes an explicit, irrevocable causal link between >> the phenomenon, the observer and the observation method, a link that is >> an anathema to the positivistic paradigm (note the interesting parallel >> with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the controversy that arose >> when it was first proposed). >> >> An important corollary of the Anthropic Principle is that, because >> observer and observation method matter, once an observer starts to >> describe the phenomenon under observation, there is inherently a loss of >> information about the phenomenon because a different observer, using a >> different observation method, would describe the phenomenon differently. >> Note that this does not render any such descriptive definition invalid >> from a practical standpoint, given the socially constructed process of >> defining. However, it does mean that no single observer (and by >> consequence, any finite number of observers) can theoretically arrive at >> a complete definition, since the process of defining inherently involves >> a descriptive reduction, thus rendering any definition inexorably >> incomplete. >> >> If we apply this to the definition of 'techno', it means that although a >> common understanding of 'techno' has emerged (in other words: the >> definition acceptance process has converged), articulating that >> definition would immediately destroy the richness of the implicit >> definition of 'techno', thus invalidating the question "What is >> techno?". >> >> QED >> >> Otto >> PS: Note 1) A more malicious view would be that definitions are often >> used to obfuscate reality, thus creating a halo of perceived expertise >> around those who use those definitions, even though their expertise is >> based solely on linguistical dexterity and not on a conceptual >> understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. Obviously I do not >> subscribe to such a view. >> PS: Note 2) Yes, I am taking the piss. >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 313-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: 313-help@hyperreal.org >>