[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] concepts

Yes Huw, for the purposes of comunication, as you say, I can explain the general idea of "activity" to any other English-speaker. But that was not my point. Michael asked me to explain "activity" as a response to me asking him to explain "information" and "receive" in the context of a discussion about concepts and cognition. I asked Michael that question because, for me, those terms belong to the cognitivist "constellation" which implies that a human being may be understood as a machine. So "machine" (or some cognate) would have played the role of "fundamental concept".

I think that for science, it is important to know what the concept of the subject matter is, even if we can communicate adequately without that understanding.


Huw Lloyd wrote:
But as "activity" is the fundamental concept of my
philosophy, I can't define it in terms of anything else,
just explain it, to give you the general idea.

Here's my take:  if it's a concept, then it can be derived from other
concepts within the constellation (paradigm/framework).  Everything is

e.g. process can be derived from interaction of structure.  System is
tricky, but do-able.


But, a
philosophy can only have one concept like that!

xmca mailing list