QUESTION 1:
Are there limits to
Construtivism ? For instance are there
limits to Construtivism in its beginning imposed by the
Gödel's Theorema ?
Mauro
Ostronoff
from Santos-Estado de Sao Paulo-Brazil
ANSWER:
Dear Mr. Ostronoff,
Gödel was concerned with the limits of
provability and "truth". Such limits
cannot be applied to constructivism because it limits itself as
a way of thinking that does not claim
ontological "truth" but possible utility in
your experiential world.
Best wishes,
Ernst von Glasersfeld
QUESTION 2:
Dear
Professor,
I am curious about the connections between
constructivism as you understand it, and
constructive mathematics or
"intuitionism" as developed by Brower, Heyting and others.
It seems that "mathematical constructivism" shares some
affinities with constructivism and
radical constructivism, but I have not
come across any literature that discusses
these connections.
Any comments or pointers to literature on
this would be most welcome.
Apologies if this is a well-worn topic.
Regards,
Dan MacKinnon
ANSWER:
Dear Mr. MacKinnon,
There certainly are, but I have never
tried to work them out. I should be
delighted if you were to look into it.
Brouwer's paper "Consciousness,
philosophy, and mathematics, Proceedings of the 10th
International Congress of
Philosophy, Vol.1, part 2 (1235-1249). Amsterdam: North
Holland publishing C., 1949;
and the work of Paul Lorenzen (Erlangen School - I don't
know how much of this
has been translated into English) would be a good
starting point. Of course, Piaget &
Szeminska's "La genèse du nombre chez l'enfant", Neuchâtel, 1941
is also very relevant (to be read
in French, because the English translation is
thoroughly misleading!), as well as the book jointly
written by Piaget & Beth
on epistemology and mathematics.
Best wishes,
Ernst von Glasersfeld
QUESTION 3:
Dear
professor Von Glasersfeld,
Your article "The
Incommensurability of Scientific and Poetic Knowledge" has
inspired me a lot in my historical and philosophical
studies concerning the development of
mysticism.
Grown up in a cultural environment rich
with mystic belief I never could bring in
agreement the knowledge the Mystics put forward and the one
science did. As if it had to.
After having read your article, you have given me a new
perspective i.e. the notion of their
incommensurability.
Please allow me to put two short questions
to you with regard to the need for mystic
or metaphysical knowledge and its character.
I understand you as saying in your article
there are several reasons for putting
forward mystical knowledge: "we realize that we are not even
coming close to the actual cause of our
emotional reaction and attachment to the
work of art. In the end we can only say: I cannot explain it,
but it's out of this world"; the
realization that there is an endless flow of experience:
"Our experience is without ends, because
as rational observers we awoke only long
after it began, and we shall no longer be there when it ceases"
and the realization that "in the initial
conception of rational models, scientists,
too, draw on poetic imagination".
Then my two questions:
1. Does mystical (or metaphysical)
knowledge being a-rational or
non-rational need to be 'viable' in whatever, perhaps in its own
mystical or metaphysical sense?
2. Is it to be or can it be excluded that
the realizations mentioned above are
possibly answerable rationally?
I hope you have the opportunity to give
your thoughts on my two questions.
Yours sincerely,
Li Wang
Mr. Li Wang (Msc)
National Tsing Hua University
College of Humanities and Social Sciences
Subfaculty Philosophy
Hsinchu, Taiwan
Republic of China
ANSWER:
Dear Mr. Li Wang,
Your two questions are very welcome.
Having grown up in a cultural environment
with practically no explicit mystical beliefs, my answers to
your questions can only be those
of an outsider.
1) I have the impression that genuine
mysticism has no room for purposive
action. The concept of viability has (in my view) two
components: on the one hand, usefulness
and success in the pursuit of a goal; on the other lack of
contradictions with other conceptual structures. Mystics,
I believe, can advise you
to carry out certain practical actions to help your
progress towards wisdom; in that sense
they may or not be viable, but they are not part of the
wisdom.
Concerning the question of coherence or
non-contradiction, the two terms are not
applicable to mystical wisdom in the way they can be applied to
logical or
rational knowing. I think the irreducible metaphors mystics use
to communicate
with others must be interpreted by each individual to his or her
satisfaction.
2) If the three things I have cited as
rationally inexplicable could be
rationally explained tomorrow, the division I have maintained
between the rational
and the mystical would collapse. I consider this highly
unlikely - but i have
been taught never to say never.
Best wishes,
Ernst von Glasersfeld
QUESTION 4:
Dear
Professor von Glaserfeld,
I'm studying cultural work at university
of applied sciences in Potsdam and for
the moment I'm working on your text "Abschied von der
Objektivität". My question: How does
radical constructivism influence the development of
new media?
Sincerly
Yours Adina Beer
ANSWER:
Dear Ms. Beer,
I know nothing about the development of
new media. In the existing media that
I come into contact with - newspapers, magazines, radio,
and TV - there is no
awareness of constructivism as an epistemological
orientation. Except for the
ever rarer broadcasting of a work of art, the producers
seem to be naive realists and they are
intent on constructing the virtual realities they are
paid to construct.
Who is developing "new" media?
Best wishes,
Ernst von Glasersfeld
QUESTION 5:
Dear E. V. G.
I'm interested in the issue
"Psychotherapist and Creativity" in the sense of
the use of creativity by the psychotherapist.
What do you think about? And do you know some
bibliography about? Thank you for help me
in the brainstorming I'm having about this issue
without more references or details to give you.
D.ssa Clarice Ranfagni - Firenze - Italia
ANSWER:
Dear Dottoressa Ranfagni,
The only thing that comes to my mind as an
answer to your question is: read David
Rosenhan's article in Paul Watzlawick's "Invented reality" which
is available in Italian.
Beyond that, you might consult with
Vincent Kenny, the director of this web
site.
Best wishes,
Ernst von Glasersfeld
