NOTES ON WOLFE

Back to IAT810:Current_events

---

You should be on at least your second reading of the Wolfe chapters.

As promised, here is brief background information. Read what is below, try to understand it, put it in the background of your attention, and concentrate on what Wolfe is trying to say.

For those of you who are "visual thinkers," pay special attention to the way he describes how Temple Grandin thinks.

systems theory The idea of "systems theory" is generally first attributed to biologist Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy's General Systems Theory (first proposed in the 1920s, refined in 1937 & widely published by 1950). Bertalanffy tried to avoid reductionism (everything can be studied in parts to know the whole) by looking for principles of a system over its organization, and on an organism (and its relations) over its mechanisms.

Following Bertalanffy, other theorists strive to find generalizable principles for systems ranging from the I Ching to thermodynamics, human organizations, educational systems, evolution and computing, to name a few. . A major aspect to keep in mind is that the focus is on the whole system and interrelations among parts, not on individual parts. For this reason, many versions of systems theory developed from the assumption that systems are "closed" to more indeterminant, "open systems." (Sounds like Eco's essay?)

In SIAT, you will probably hear references to these "systems science" thinkers: Ilya Prigogine: emergent properties, (they may offer analogues for living systems) Francisco Varela & Humberto Maturana: theories of autopoiesis Fritjof Capra: physicist (physics & metaphysics) web-like structure of all systems,

      interconnectedness of all parts

For an especially concise reading on systems theory, cybernetics and the Macy's Conference, refer to: Mattelart & Mattelart (1998), Theories of Communication: A Short Introduction, Sage. Chapter Three: Information Theory

deconstruction In some ways, deconstruction relates to versions of systems theory that are concerned with "open systems;" that is, the meaning and knowledge are unstable, in constant flux, and in an extreme view, unknowable.

The idea of deconstruction is attributed to literary theorist Jacques Derrida, who uses the term to refer to practices of "reading" a text in such a way that textual inconsistencies, contradictions and (binary) oppositions are revealed.

Like Barthes and Eco, Derrida believes that any text can be interpreted in multiple ways that don't shake out into any one coherent idea. Also like Barthes and Eco, in examining textual readings, Derrida studies how language itself works, and argues that interpretative reading cannot go beyond a certain point, or "aporia" (an impasse or confusion, puzzlement). This approach is very different from earlier theories of language, which were developed to explain semantic and other linguistic structures.

(He was influenced by Heiddeger for you phenom phreaks out there. However, unlike early phenomenologists, Derrida doesn't believe there is an origin of experience.)

To provide one example: Derrida would not subscribe to the idea that there is one, say Greek, etymological origin or ultimate root meaning of a word. Rather, he would point out that we understand words (among other things and ideas) in relation to each other (differeance): we understand what "hot" means because we refer to its binary opposition -- "cold." But Derrida doesn't stop there -- he's not JUST concerned with words, but with how language works; in this case, by binary oppositions. (Note: he is concerned with origins to some degree, but looks at the ways in which origins themselves lead to instability in meaning, and how certain origins act as frames of reference or ways of thinking.)

Enjoy!