These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
On 20 August 2013 23:05, Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu> wrote: > Hi Huw, > > Integrating systems and systems-functional views with > dialectical/historical materialism is not a problem at all because of their > objectivist nature. It is not always straightforward. The "single basis" of the dialectical unit is one such problem. > In addition, dialectical/historical materialists claim that the founders > of their philosophy are precursors of systems thinking. Several of their > capital writings are usually cited as examples. There is a huge difference > between Positivism and Dialectical/Historical Materialism regarding their > foundational axioms and principles, as well as their attitudes to the role > of induction/deduction in the process of knowledge production. However, at > lower levels of abstraction, they exchange knowledge with ease. I already > mentioned this regarding field research methods. However, it happens also > when borrowing theoretical products. > Positivism in the "measuring elements" sense is not holistic. > > Now, try to integrate systems thinking with the humanistic paradigms. I am > very interested in good examples of such work. I mean epistemologically > sound examples, not eclectic attempts to put together their concepts in one > text. > Yes. > > It is interesting to study how ideas about holistic presentation of > reality are operationalized/concretized in Dialectical Materialism and in > the humanist approaches. I see a huge difference in preferred topics, > concepts, and terminology. All this makes the translation of knowledge from > one tradition to the other very complicated, complex, and prone with > errors. People interpret the words (the terms are always paradigm and > discipline specific) the way they want, with full disregard to the original > intentions and the habitual interpretation of these terms in their original > paradigmatic environment. I have seen that very often. I myself have > experienced such states of mind many times. You will be astonished, but > many historical materialist concept are interpreted very differently by > authors outside that community. The background for interpretation is different; there are huge inaccuracies > in translating words instead of terms and concepts; many of the terms and > concepts simply cannot be translated; and so on. Usually, the definitions > of terms and concepts cover only their core. The "mantle" around the core > cannot be explicated because it is very fluid, requires a lot of text, and > actually, there is no full agreement about it. Researches develop a sense > about the periphery by constantly reading authors that are very close in > thinking. This is one example of tacit knowledge (we talked about that > yesterday). > These are all difficulties. But this is not the same as "not possible". Best, Huw > > Let me stop here... > > Lubomir > > Lubo > > >