| Von Glasersfeld's answers - March 2005  |

 
 
 


QUESTION 1:
 
From: Carlos Mario Muņoz Suārez <neurofilosofia1@yahoo.com.mx>
Subject: on escepticism (the correct)

Dr. Glazerfeld, thanks you for your answer, is more sinthetic...
the problem that I view in this point is: the radical constructivism not might be confussed with (radical) idealism. In my point of view the radical constructivism should search any explanation to the genesis of the metaphisical reality's construction.

On the other hand, I believe that the escepticals arguments can not be definitives, given thath the esceptic's arguments will be autocontradictorious. ŋThe konowledge of my unknowledge of the reality, is not a epistemological conclusion from esceptical corpus? In eccordance with the cartesio's arguments (not Agripa's arguments) makes whit the esceptics; for equalize the esceptical conclusion and (radical) constructivistics conclusion is necessary to suspend the judment, therefore is configured a dogmatic argument (migth say the esceptic).  
In this way, the radical constructivism needs explain the construction of metafisical reality (used in  the erguments to favor of the metaphisical realism), for not to fall in 1) a (radical) idealism or 2) a dogmatic conclusion. ŋWhat do you think?

Note: any of this argument will be articulateds on the a book that I'm writing...I know thath you con help in the construction of estructur of any arguments, and resolve any questions,

thank Dr. Glacerfeld

Pst.: Again, sorry for my english.

Att.: Carlos M. Muņoz S.
Universidad del Valle (Colombia)
 
ANSWER 1:

Dear Mr. Suarez,

I don't mind your English, but I do mind that you spell my name differently everytime you write it: this shows that you don't read with much attention.

I said in my last e-mail: "As a constructivist I agree with the skeptics in saying that we cannot know any reality beyond our experience." (In the US it is the Skeptics, in the other English speaking world it's the Sceptics, but only in your language they seem to have an "e" at the beginning.)

The skeptics have no business being skeptical about radical constructivism because constructivism does not claim to be "true". It's a model of KNOWING not of BEING. It makes no ontological or metaphysical claims.

The question of how a "metaphysical reality" can be constructed is an interesting one. My short answer is that we construct it the same way we construct our experiential reality but then choose to forget that we have constructed it. Much more could be said about this - maybe you can work on it?

Best wishes,

Ernst von Glasersfeld
 

BACK | TORNA INDIETRO
 

 

Home | Ecology of Mind | Mind-ing Ecology | Co-ordination Page | Search 
Bateson | Kelly | Maturana | von Glasersfeld | Laing | Antipsychiatry | Links
Ecology in Politics | Eco-logising Psychology | Sustainability | Environment & Nature