Dear Dr. von Glasersfeld,
I'm not sure if the following is really worth of your
attention, but I wanted to say that I
deem your ideas, as well as the work by Maturana
and Varela, very useful and seminal in many fields,
including the apparently marginal
field such of the theory of art, of creativity in
general, and musical creativity in particular. My
main concerns in the area of music
theory, or anyway music related philosophical
speculations, are:
(1) to dismantle the predominant view of the
"musical mind" depicted in cognitive science based on
"problem solving" and related
computational paradigms; in general, to criticize the
reductionistic ontological
scenario where human beings first
"solve their survival problems" and hence find
spare time to enjoy mimesis and "art". Based on
the Maturana-Varela model
of cognition, as well as
on your and other constructivists' work, it would
be possible to clarify a different role of art making
(techne) as a primary, more
fundamental domain in which "cognition" happens and
"consciousness" emerges: in short, I would
mantain that creativity (= "problem
raising") is more
fundamental than "problem solving" in the domain of
interaction of self-organizing
systems installing and preserving their identity;
curiosity of the world and
manipulation of objects and symbols enter the scene
before all enemies have
been safely guarded off; artists do not make their
work after reaching a "safe" position in society.
The unfortunately widely
cognitive-reductionistic view of art is, volens nolens,
instrumental to (or
is it a by-product
of?) the modern socio-cultural context of "art
consumerism", not to say that it
inadvertantly justifies and legitimizes
what I call the "privilege of aesthetics"
in all artistic and related
technological efforts. Nowadays (in
a thoroughly estheticized
world) we need, and art needs, less aesthetics
than ethics.
Unfortunately, Kant's wrongly understood focus on aiesthesis
as the "pure appreciation" is still
dominant (notwithstanding much relevant "experimental" art,
along the XX century), i.e. the idea that we can
better enjoy human made
objects or processes when we don't know anything about
it, and have no "interest"
in it.
(2) to highlight the relevance of the hermeneutic exchange and
interaction between "ideals" and "material conditions",
between "imagination" and the
historically determined working environment where
art is made (created, replicated, appreciated).
Art making could be deemed as the only
domain of human affairs where almost everybody
would accept the macchiavellian notion that "the
ends justify the means". Yet things are
not so (except maybe for l'art
pour l'art), as all art making implies (has implied
across the centuries, across the
continents) a very deep dialactical involvement
with the very means and tools (all art is a
destructuration, restructuration and
reinvention of preestablished codes and
technologies). Art is made by inventing the means of art
making. At all levels, in the
experience of art
the means are not neutral, quite the contrary: they are
what is worked out, they
constitue meanings, and the very tools by which
interaction with the
medium can be consciously elaborated.
As to my personal endeavours in sound art and musical
composing, I tend to implement
small "audible ecosystemic niches", based on a variety of
exchanges (structural coupling) between a
"system" (a body of algorithms
of sound signal synthesis
and processing, that I design for myself) and
its surrounding (the real, material space where
this system is placed - "no
virtual reality", no "virtual space" is simulated). In
such artworks, all interactions
among the "system" and the surrounding
ambience take place in the medium of sound, i.e. the
medium to the "system" is sound
(acoustically, psichoacoustically,
ecologically viewed). The aim is to eventually
highlight the listener's
experience of his own
acoustic-ecological relationship to the medium and other
observing/observed systems in the medium of
sound. (I should stress that I am
speaking no "poetic" metaphor, here: I take - as far as I
can - the system/medium structural coupling, and
the organizational closure etc, as
a practical,
implementatory, or "operating" metaphor, not as a device to
create a symbolic document as a representation of
something, i.e. musical score to
be played by some instruments, or sung, etc. -
"presencing" in this
endeavour is more important than "representing")
I wonder if you share the view that the autopoietic theory of
cognition can foster
a different view on creativity and on its development in
artistic experience. And if you have ever heard
of implemented models based of
autopoietic systems in the realm of sound or other.
I would be grateful if you find time to
answer, Agostino Di Scipio
Dear Mr. Di Scipio,
You clearly have absorbed a lot of Maturana's writings and
perhaps not very much of mine. I say
this because I have stated in many places that I
consider art to belong to the domain of the mystical, a
domain that is not accessible to
raison.
to (1) I like your idea that creativity is something
like'problem raising'. It fits in
well with a quotation I took from Hersh
& Davis, who used it to refute the notion that mathematics is
nothing but symbol manipulation; they
said it is like music: the music is there
before the score. - Where the music comes from, I do
not know. I am not sure that, for many
artists, art may serve to solve a social problem: it
makes possible an immersion in the social texture with
almost no actual social interaction.
to (2) I don't agree with: Art is made by inventing the means
of art making. Clay was used to solve problems of the kitchen
(or cave) long before sculptors played
with it; and the voice was presumably used for
shouting before singing began. In discussing a
philosophy of art it is, I think,
important to anticipate at the outset what definition of art
should be considered. In this country there is a
permanent confusion because no
distinction is suggested between craft and art.The distinction
need not exclude that the two may be related. A
Ferrari, for instance, may be
appreciated as a machine, as the product of a craft, and as a
work of art; but I would insist that
the criteria of the three domains must be
kept apart. I would suggest that you communicate with
Felice Accame (email address:
centrostudi.cov@figc.it), director of the Società di
Cultura Metodologico-Operativa, who could direct you to parts
of Silvio Ceccato's work that would, I
think, be of interest to you.
Best wishes, Ernst von Glasersfeld
Dear Professor von Glasersfeld,
thank you very much for answering my question put up in
August. As I've got
farther ahead now in my studies of radical
constructivism, I have learnt a lot
about Prof. von Foersters ethic imperativ and the relativity
principle, which anyway does not solve
my problem of how individuals can get along with
each other (In my opinion putting up "ethic" principles
which everybody has to pursue means
creating a meta-individual reality again.)
As well have I read about your opinon on how knowledge is
created (I preferably appreciate your
theory of interaction of re-presentation and
individual identity). And I try to follow your advice
in teaching (this term it is "crisis
management", which nearly perfectly meets the requirements of
constructivism, as any crisis equals an innovation and
thus is a construction of its own.)
There is one thing I would like to draw yout attention to, it
is Saint-Exupérys "Little Prince",
which has been accompanying me for years now
and perfectly expresses the fundamental staments of
constructivism (as a whole, but
particularly in its second chapter), see below (I suppose
you'll prefer the original version,
English or German version are available from
the web, too)
Thanks again for your answer,
With my kindest regards
Ulrike Gelbmann
------------
Dr. Ulrike Gelbmann
Institut für Innovations- und Umweltmanagement
Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz
Universitätsstrasse 15/G2
A-8010 Graz
Fax: ++43(0)316/380-9585
E-Mail:
ulrike.gelbmann@uni-graz.at
CHAPITRE II
J'ai ainsi vécu seul, sans personne avec qui parler
véritablement, jusqu'à une panne dans
le désert du Sahara, il y a six ans. Quelque chose s'était
cassé dans mon moteur, Et comme je n'avais avec moi ni
méchanicien, ni passagers, je me
préparai à essayer de réussir, tout seul, une réparation
difficile. C'était pour moi une question de vie ou de
mort. J'avais à peine de l'eau à boire
pour huit jours.
Le premier soir je me suis donc endormi sur le sable à mille
milles de toute terre habitée. J'étais
bien plus isolé qu'un naufragé sur un rideau au
milieu de l'océan. Alors vous imaginez ma surprise, au
levé du jour, quand une drôle de petite
voix m'a réveillé. Elle disait:
-S'il vous plaît... dessine-moi un mouton!
-Hein!
-Dessine-moi un mouton...
J'ai sauté sur mes pieds comme si j'avais été frappé par la
foudre. J'ai bien frotté mes yeux. J'ai
bien regardé. Et j'ai vu un petit bonhomme tout à
fait extraordinaire qui me considérait gravement. Voilà
le meilleur portrait que, plus tard,
j'ai réussi à faire de lui. Mais mon dessin, bien sûr, est
beaucoup moins ravissant que le modèle. Ce n'est pas de
ma faute. J'avais été découragé dans ma
carrière de peintre par les grandes personnes, à l'age
de six ans, et je n'avais rien appris à dessiner, sauf
les boas fermés et les boas ouverts.
Je regardai donc cette apparition avec des yeux tout ronds
d'étonnement. N'oubliez pas que je me
trouvais à mille milles de toute région habitée. Or
mon petit bonhomme ne me semblait ni égaré, ni mort de
fatigue, ni mort de faim, ni mort de
soif, ni mort de peur. Il n'avait en rien l'apparence d'un
enfant perdu au milieu du désert, à mille milles de
toute région habitée.
Quand je réussis enfin de parler, je lui dis:
-Mais qu'est-ce que tu fais là?
Et il me répéta alors, tout doucement, comme une chose très
sérieuse:
-S'il vous plaît... dessine-moi un mouton...
Quand le mystère est trop impressionnant, on n'ose pas
désobéir. Aussi absurde que cela me
semblaît à mille milles de tous les endroits habités et
en danger de mort, je sortis de ma poche une feuille de
papier et un stylographe. Mais je me
rappelai alors que j'avais surtout étudié la
géographie, l'histoire, le calcul et la grammaire et je
dis au petit bonhomme (avec un peu de
mauvaise humeur) que je ne savais pas dessiner. Il
me répondit:
-Ca ne fait rien. Dessine-moi un mouton.
Comme je n'avais jamais dessiné un mouton je refis, pour, un
des deux seuls dessins dont j'étais
capable. Celui du boa fermé. ET je fus stupéfait
d'entendre le petit bonhomme me répondre:
-Non! Non! Je ne veux pas d'un éléphant dans un boa. Un boa
c'est très dangereux, et un éléphant
c'est très encombrant. Chez moi c'est tout petit.
J'ai besoin d'un mouton. Dessine-moi un mouton.
Alors j'ai dessiné.
Il regarda attentivement, puis:
-Non! Celui-là est déjà très malade. Fais-en un autre.
Je dessinai:
Mon ami sourit gentiment, avec indulgence:
-Tu vois bien... ce n'est pas un mouton, c'est un bélier. Il a
des cornes...
Je refis donc encore mon dessin: Mais il fut refusé, comme les
précédents:
-Celui-là est trop vieux. Je veux un mouton qui vive
longtemps.
Alors, faute de patience, comme j'avais hâte de commencer le
démontage de mon moteur, je griffonnai
ce dessin-ci.
Et je lançai:
-Ca c'est la caisse. le mouton que tu veux est dedans.
Mais je fus bien surpris de voir s'illuminer le visage de mon
jeune juge: -C'est tout à fait comme ça
que je le voulais! Crois-tu qu'il faille
beaucoup d'herbe à ce mouton?
-Pourquoi?
-Parce que chez moi c'est tout petit...
-Ca suffira sûrement. Je t'ai donné un tout petit mouton.
Il pencha la tête vers le dessin:
-Pas si petit que ça... Tiens! Il s'est endormi...
ET c'est ainsi que je fis la connaissance du petit prince.
***
Dear Ms. Gelbmann,
Thank you for sending me the chapter of
the "petit prince" and thank you for
sending it in French. You obviously anticipated my mistrust of
translators. It must be more than 60
years that I read it and "vol de nuit", so long that
I never connected it with constructivism.
You may be a bit harsh on H.v.F. As I understood him, he said
that whatever rules you make, you make
them for yourself, not for others; and the only rule
he generalized was that of opening new possibilities.
It seems to me that this attitude might
be useful in any kind of arbitration.
Best wishes,
Ernst von Glasersfeld
Dr. von Glasersfeld,
Thank you so much for your reply
to me! It is my honor to get a letter from you
-- the authority of constructivim.
You have helped me a lot and I still have something puzzling
me, and you must be clear about it.
what is the difference between constructivism and struturalism
on earth (esp. for its notion)? surely
there is sth related to the
constructivism and struturalism of Piaget, however, there is
still sth diferent in its general
meaning. and i guess Piaget is the one who wanna
to connect them, and what about u?
Thanks for your consideration!
sincerely
Liu Shufeng
Dear Mr. Liu Shufeng,
As you obviously have read some Piaget and some
structuralists, I think you should try
to formulate differences and similarities for yourself. I can
do no more than ask you to look again
at what I wrote in my last letter. You
have to make a judgment yourself because your interpretation
of Piaget, the structuralists, and
radical constructivism may be different from mine.
Best wishes,
Ernst von Glasersfeld
Dr. von Glasersfeld,
Do you consider radical constructivism to be a "heuristic
fiction" ?
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Sam Hairston
Dear Mr. Hairston,
As far as i know the term "heuristic
fiction" was introduced by Hans Vaihinger in his commentaries
on Kant (whether he found it in Kant's
texts, I do not know). Examples he gave were "the thing in
itself", the concept of "God",
and others. They were all things that turned out to be
useful in social interactions, especially
collaboration. Gregory Bateson
spoke of "explanatory principles" such
as the notion of gravity in physics. I consider
those of the same category. They are concepts that are useful
in the practical exploitation of
theories. But they usually are single
concepts. I would go further and say (with the great
physicists of the last hundred years) that theories are
fictions, and if they turn out be useful, they are heuristic
fictions. Consequently radical constructivism, which is
a theory of knowing, can be called a
heuristic fiction if, indeed, you consider it to be useful.
Best wishes,
Ernst von Glasersfeld
