| Annotation Metadata
|
^"permissions":^"read":ӶӺ,"update":ӶӺ,"delete":ӶӺ,"admin":ӶӺ°,"user":^"id":6,"name":"Sarah Oberbichler"°,"id":"Sp1nq8vr11","ranges":Ӷ^"start":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ9Ӻ","startOffset":0,"end":"/divӶ3Ӻ/divӶ4Ӻ/divӶ1Ӻ/pӶ9Ӻ","endOffset":1265°Ӻ,"quote":"For me, one of the most difficult points in Maturana’s conceptual edifice was his oft repeated assertion that the observer, too, could be derived, without further assumptions, from his formulation of the basic biological conditions governing the interactions and the linguistic activity of autopoietic organisms. It took me more than a decade to construct for myself an interpretation of this derivation. If I present it here, I do so with the emphatic warning that it is, indeed, a personal interpretation that makes no claim whatever to authenticity.\nAccording to Maturana, all linguistic activity or “languaging” takes place “in the praxis of living: we human beings find ourselves as living systems immersed in it.”Ӷ6Ӻ Languaging, for Maturana, does not mean conveying news or any kind of “information”, but refers to a social activity that arises from a coordination of actions that have been tuned by mutual adaptation. Without such coordination of acting there would be no possibility of describing and, consequently, no way for the distinctions made by an actor to become conscious. To become aware of distinctions, is called observing. To observe oneself as the maker of distinctions, therefore, is no more and no less than to become conscious of oneself.","highlights":Ӷ^"jQuery3210133245403116930342":^°°,^"jQuery3210133245403116930342":^°°,^"jQuery3210133245403116930342":^°°,^"jQuery3210133245403116930342":^°°Ӻ,"text":"","order":"mw-content-text","category":"Argumentation2","data_creacio":1569595436467°
|
