Property:AnnotationMetadata
A
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Qyxq84o1xl","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","startOffset":1046,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","endOffset":1470°Ӻ,"quote":"The point I want to make is that it is the experiencer who generates the image, the configuration that becomes the “representation”, and that this configuration is always one of several others that are equally possible within the constraints of the sensory material. This, I claim, goes for all the experiential units or things to which we give names, and it is the reason why I maintain that meanings are always subjective.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321029807212534540472":^°°Ӻ,"text":"The point I want to make is that it is the experiencer who generates the image, the configuration that becomes the “representation”, and that this configuration is always one of several others that are equally possible within the constraints of the sensory material. This, I claim, goes for all the experiential units or things to which we give names, and it is the reason why I maintain that meanings are always subjective.","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1566399980922°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Rrdabv6ct7","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/pӶ3Ӻ","startOffset":365,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ","endOffset":3697°Ӻ,"quote":"None of these verbs could be used in any of the other three situations. \nThe conceptual structures called up by the German verbs are more complex than the one called up by “to hit”. They all contain the meaning of the English verb, i.e. the construct of an object’s sudden impact with something else; but they also contain specifications of the event that are not part of the English meaning. As a result, English-speakers who want to express themselves in German must learn not only different words but also a different way of seeing the details of the relevant experiences. \nBetween any two languages you might choose, there are innumerable differences of conceptualization. If they lie in the area of perceptual or sensorimotor construction, they sooner or later become noticeable and corrigible in practical situations of interaction. If, however, they are a matter of abstract conceptual construction, such as the meaning of the German word Vorstellung and that of the English word “representation”, they may cause lasting misinterpretation because their incompatibility rarely becomes apparent on the surface. \n\n\nI have chosen examples of the differential construction of meaning in different languages because they manifest themselves in the daily experience of anyone who lives in more than one language. But the meanings individual users of one and the same language construct are no more homogeneous. Although individuals necessarily adapt the meanings they associate with words to what they perceive to be the usage of the community, the stuff those meanings consist of is always part of their own subjective experience. Consequently it is misleading to speak of “shared” meanings. The four terms I mentioned in the abstract involve meaning in one way or another and tend to reinforce the notion that its structure is a well-known fixed entity. This, in my view, inevitably leads to trouble.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321032287351973624812":^°°,^"jQuery321032287351973624812":^°°,^"jQuery321032287351973624812":^°°,^"jQuery321032287351973624812":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1566401216644°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Rsk7998r5o","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ/pӶ1Ӻ","startOffset":507,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","endOffset":1736°Ӻ,"quote":"One might call this the relativity of the point of view. But there is also the relativity of construction. The connections between the five stars are not in the sky. They have to be imagined by the observer – and there is nothing in the sensory material that imposes the formation of a double-u. The stars could equally well be connected differently: \n\nFig.5: Alternative Constructs \n\n\nThe Greeks called it a crown because this was a generally accessible analogy in their world. The double-u of our alphabet supplied an analogy that was more easily accessible to us.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321051508804293252722":^°°,^"jQuery321051508804293252722":^°°,^"jQuery321051508804293252722":^°°,^"jQuery321051508804293252722":^°°,^"jQuery321051508804293252722":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1566400633435°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Uigwach9pn","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","endOffset":325°Ӻ,"quote":"The point I want to stress is that from our perspective it is attention and above all its movements that generate the conceptual structures and thus the things we talk about. These items, as I said before, cannot have an existence of their own but originate through the operations of an experiencer or observer.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321051508804293252722":^°°Ӻ,"text":"The point I want to stress is that from our perspective it is attention and above all its movements that generate the conceptual structures and thus the things we talk about. These items, as I said before, cannot have an existence of their own but originate through the operations of an experiencer or observer.","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1566400385764°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Z6pnfx3p0k","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ","startOffset":3698,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ","endOffset":4065°Ӻ,"quote":"What speakers of a language have constructed as the meanings of the words they use, is at best compatible in the linguistic interactions with other speakers; but such compatibility remains forever relative to the limited number of actual interactions the individual has had in his or her past. What speakers have learned to mean always remains their own construction.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321032287351973624812":^°°,^"jQuery321032287351973624812":^°°Ӻ,"text":"What speakers of a language have constructed as the meanings of the words they use, is at best compatible in the linguistic interactions with other speakers; but such compatibility remains forever relative to the limited number of actual interactions the individual has had in his or her past. What speakers have learned to mean always remains their own construction.","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1566401225994°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Zkhy51itjb","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ2Ӻ","startOffset":1625,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ2Ӻ","endOffset":1833°Ӻ,"quote":"The problem of meaning thus comes down to the problem of how we generate units in our experience such that we can associate them with words, and how we relate these units to form larger conceptual structures.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210202359337057632762":^°°,^"jQuery3210202359337057632762":^°°Ӻ,"text":"The problem of meaning thus comes down to the problem of how we generate units in our experience such that we can associate them with words, and how we relate these units to form larger conceptual structures.","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1566399048744°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Au72zqf9m7","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ6Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ6Ӻ","endOffset":947°Ӻ,"quote":"This, it seems to me, could have some far-reaching consequences. Once Others are seen as an epistemological requirement needed for the construction of our own experiential reality, we may be able to counteract some of the influence the concept of competition has wielded for so long owing to its unfortunate and largely erroneous association with the theory of evolution. Similarly, since the notion of “controlling others” tends to destroy the possibility of corroborating the viability of one’s own cognitive structures, the constructivist approach to ethics would foster tolerance.\nWhen competition and control of others are eliminated, we may come to have an interactive pattern of mature humanity. That pattern I would call “collaborative dialectic”, because it would be very much like the pattern of biological evolution which, according to the most recent findings seems far less competitive than coevolutionary.\n\nConclusion:","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°,^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°,^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1563971749954°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Ca15tuuxgp","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","startOffset":1371,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","endOffset":1446°Ӻ,"quote":"This, I believe, is as close as a constructivist can come to “objectivity”.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"This, I believe, is as close as a constructivist can come to “objectivity”.","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1563971569151°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Gpv4lxsdlo","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ2Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ2Ӻ","endOffset":1106°Ӻ,"quote":"Saying that we have no cognitive access to a world beyond our experience may suggest to some that any such theory of knowledge must be very close to, if not identical with, the dreaded heresy of solipsism. I do not think that this applies to the kind of constructivism I have been promoting. \nThe reason is simply that, although we deny the traditionally posited iconic relation between knowledge and ontological reality, we substitute for it a different but no less specific relation. Unlike the notion of “truth”, which requires a match, i.e. shared points, between the picture and what it is to represent, the notion of “viability” requires fit which, in this context, could be characterized precisely by the absence of shared points. The concept of “viability”, however, does imply that there are or will be obstacles and constraints that impinge on whatever aspires to becoming viable. It is not the case that “anything goes”, and it is precisely through its obstructions that ontological “reality” manifests itself: by impeding some of our actions and by thwarting some of our efforts.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1563971541283°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Mbi2owta6y","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ3Ӻ","endOffset":1371°Ӻ,"quote":"This creation of Others in our likeness does not happen all at once. It begins quite harmlessly with the child imputing the capability of spontaneous movement to items in the experiential field that do not stay put. It is followed by the imputation of visual and auditory senses to animals, and it is crowned by the imputation of goaldirected behavior, deliberate planning, and experiential learning to Others whom one considers “like” oneself. Once this level of sophistication is reached, one spends a great deal of time explaining, predicting, and attempting to control these Others. That is to say, one now has models of moving, perceiving, planning, thinking, feeling, and even philosophizing Others in one’s experiential field, models to whom one imputes the kinds of concepts, schemes, and rules one might oneself abstract from one’s experience. These models incorporate some of the knowledge we ourselves have found useful and thus viable in our own dealings with experience. If, then, we are able to make a successful prediction about any one of these Others, the particular piece of knowledge which, in making the prediction, we have imputed to the Other, acquires a second order of viability: we now feel justified in saying that this piece of knowledge was found to be viable not only in our own sphere of actions but also in that of the Other.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1563971595718°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Msuzampwv2","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":1131°Ӻ,"quote":"For epistemologists, then, it may be useful to look at how we come to have that kind of knowledge. From my point of view, Humberto Maturana has provided the most lucid analysis of the procedure that is usually called “the scientific method”.Ӷ1Ӻ Maturana divides the procedure into four steps: \nOBSERVATION. In order to count as “scientific”, an observation must be carried out under certain constraints, and the constraints must be made explicit (so that the observation can be repeated).\nObservations may then be related by an HYPOTHESIS, usually an inductive hypothesis that involves causal connections.\nBy deduction a PREDICTION is derived from the hypothesis, a prediction that concerns an event that has not yet been observed.\nThe scientist then sets out to observe the predicted event; again, the OBSERVATION must take place under certain explicit constraints.\nThroughout the four steps, what matters is experience. Observing is a way of experiencing and, to be scientific, it must be regulated by certain constraints. The hypotheses by means of which one then relates one’s observations, connect experiences, not “things-in-themselves”. The predictions, again, regard experiences, not events in some “real” world that lies beyond one’s actual experience.\nSeen in this way, the scientific method does not refer to, nor does it need, an ontological reality – it concerns exclusively the experiential world of observers.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°,^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1563971474953°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Nf8ywugeo2","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ5Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ5Ӻ","endOffset":239°Ӻ,"quote":"In the light of what was said above about the levels of the reality that we construct of our experiences, Others are of very great importance: without them, we could not attain the highest level of that experiential reality.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1563971703987°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Pyr8jth46d","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ6Ӻ","startOffset":947,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ6Ӻ","endOffset":1435°Ӻ,"quote":"If knowledge can be considered the result of the adaptive effort of cognitive organisms in their struggle to maintain their equilibrium in the face of perturbations, it does not seem reasonable for them to use this knowledge to compete with one another. On the contrary, it seems that in order to maintain not only their own equilibrium but also that of the planet on which they find themselves living they would have to foster in every conceivable way every kind of mutual collaboration.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"If knowledge can be considered the result of the adaptive effort of cognitive organisms in their struggle to maintain their equilibrium in the face of perturbations, it does not seem reasonable for them to use this knowledge to compete with one another. On the contrary, it seems that in order to maintain not only their own equilibrium but also that of the planet on which they find themselves living they would have to foster in every conceivable way every kind of mutual collaboration.","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1563971734098°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Rgsagcgxj3","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ2Ӻ","startOffset":1106,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ2Ӻ","endOffset":1338°Ӻ,"quote":"The salient point in all this is that, since this “reality” manifests itself only in failures of our acting and/or thinking, we have no way of describing it except in terms of actions and thoughts that turned out to be unsuccessful.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°,^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"The salient point in all this is that, since this “reality” manifests itself only in failures of our acting and/or thinking, we have no way of describing it except in terms of actions and thoughts that turned out to be unsuccessful.","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1563971500982°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"S1dg1cdpih","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ5Ӻ","startOffset":239,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ5Ӻ","endOffset":260°Ӻ,"quote":"Thus, we need Others.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Thus, we need Others.","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1563971718022°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Uonkg7x2bd","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ","startOffset":1440,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ","endOffset":2399°Ӻ,"quote":"Scientific knowledge, then, does not and could not yield a picture of the “real” world; it provides more or less reliable ways of dealing with experience. Hence it may be viable, but it can make no claim to “Truth”, if “Truth” is to be understood as a correspondence to the ontologically real world. On the other hand, this way of looking at knowledge, be it scientific or other, makes it immune against the sceptics’ perennial argument. Since this constructivist notion of knowledge does not claim to provide a picture of something beyond experience, the fact that one cannot compare it with such a something, does not detract from this kind of knowledge - it is either viable or it is not. Indeed, as a constructivist, I tend to go one step further: Since we have access only to experience and cannot get outside the experiential field, there is no way one could show that one’s experiences are the effects of causes that lie outside the experiential world.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Scientific knowledge, then, does not and could not yield a picture of the “real” world; it provides more or less reliable ways of dealing with experience. Hence it may be viable, but it can make no claim to “Truth”, if “Truth” is to be understood as a correspondence to the ontologically real world. On the other hand, this way of looking at knowledge, be it scientific or other, makes it immune against the sceptics’ perennial argument. Since this constructivist notion of knowledge does not claim to provide a picture of something beyond experience, the fact that one cannot compare it with such a something, does not detract from this kind of knowledge - it is either viable or it is not. Indeed, as a constructivist, I tend to go one step further: Since we have access only to experience and cannot get outside the experiential field, there is no way one could show that one’s experiences are the effects of causes that lie outside the experiential world.","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1563971465552°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Yd8rs5pexe","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ","startOffset":2478,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ","endOffset":2639°Ӻ,"quote":"Constructivism, thus, does not deny the “existence” of Others, it merely holds that insofar as we know these Others, they are models that we ourselves construct.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"Constructivism, thus, does not deny the “existence” of Others, it merely holds that insofar as we know these Others, they are models that we ourselves construct.","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1563971639261°
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Zxfq0fzy4h","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ","endOffset":2478°Ӻ,"quote":"It is obvious that the construction of a viability of which I can say with some justification that it seems to reach beyond my own field of experience into that of Others, must play an important part in the stabilization and solidification of my experiential reality. In fact, it helps to create that highest level of which we then believe that it is shared by Others and, therefore “more real” than anything experienced only by ourselves.\nThis kind of corroboration, one might think, is much more easily and much more generally achieved by linguistic communication. From the constructivist point of view, however, the notion of “sharing” as a result of a linguistic exchange turns out to be the result of the very same kind of imputation we have discussed above. This brief summary is not the place to expand on the constructivist approach to language and communication.Ӷ4Ӻ All I want to say here is that, in spite of the fact that it often feels as though the meaning of words and sentences were conveyed to us by the sounds of speech or the signs on a printed page, it is easy to show that meanings do not travel through space and must under all circumstances be constructed in the heads of the language users. If we then ask, what these meanings could be made of, we find that the only raw material available is the stock of experiential records the individual language user has so far accumulated. There is no doubt that these subjective meanings get modified, honed, and adapted throughout the course of social interaction. But this adaptation does not and cannot change the fact that the material of which these meanings consist can be taken only from the individual language user’s subjective experience. (Note that, in this respect, social adaptation is analogous to biological adaptation: it can do no more than bring out, recombine, or thwart what is already in the organism – it cannot instill new elements.)\n\nIt may be useful to repeat that constructivism does not deny reality, nor does it deny that the living organism interacts with an environment; but it does deny that the human knower can come to know reality in the ontological sense. The reason for this denial is simply that the human knower’s interactions with the ontic world may reveal to some extent what the human knower can do – the space in which the human knower can move –, but they cannot reveal the nature of the constraints within which the human knower’s movements are confined.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°,^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°,^"jQuery321011671463751757862":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1563971675410°
Annotationen:Knowing without Metaphysics: Aspects of the Radical Constructivist Position/C6dunbmxwf +
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"C6dunbmxwf","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ8Ӻ","startOffset":14,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ8Ӻ","endOffset":391°Ӻ,"quote":"Just as language arises and becomes a relatively stable system through the continual interaction of the individuals that use it, so a great many of the conceptual schemes that individuals construct are reinforced through their application in social interaction. This is a subtle, complicated issue and I shall try to explicate it with an example that may seem absurdly simple.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321000601467717208870052":^°°,^"jQuery321000601467717208870052":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Prämisse3","data_creacio":1563973242836°
Annotationen:Knowing without Metaphysics: Aspects of the Radical Constructivist Position/Cakas2wfvu +
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Cakas2wfvu","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ11Ӻ","startOffset":571,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/divӶ11Ӻ","endOffset":728°Ӻ,"quote":"This, of course, is the reason why the best teachers have always paid more attention to the sources of mistakes than to the how of students’ correct answers.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery321000601467717208870052":^°°Ӻ,"text":"This, of course, is the reason why the best teachers have always paid more attention to the sources of mistakes than to the how of students’ correct answers.","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Schlussfolgerung3","data_creacio":1563973408197°
