Monday, October 24, 2011

Roger Malina on performative science.
The proposed discourse is motivated through a bewilderment due to conflicting opinions. It has been the basic intention behind systems theory to include lifeworld into science with reference to Heidegger’s fundamental ontology and the concept of being-in-the-world. However, it was Heidegger, above all, who warned from the supra-theoretical hubris of systems theory and cybernetics. In “The end of philosophy” in 1969 he anticipated: “No prophecy is necessary to recognize that the sciences now establishing themselves will soon be determined and steered by the new fundamental science which is called cybernetics. […] The arts become regulated-regulating instruments of information.“ To reverse once more, Heidegger’s philosophy has reasonably been certified (e.g. by Rüdiger Rimpler) to contain itself processuality and performativity. Others regard it as mysticism. Is mysticism the fate of performative science, too? Last but not least, the more recent phenomenological streams strongly influenced by French thinkers like Maurice Merleau-Ponty or Michel Henry should be mentioned for they particularly add corporeality as an important aspect of performativity and understanding, i.e. the bodily involvement in doing, which is also considered to play the major role of performative science.
Just for clarity: Malina's posting on performative science is a quotation from a call for papers by Hans H. Diebner. For those interested in the issue, the dossier appeared in April 2012 and is available as pdf from the publisher's (Studia UBB. Philosophia) site:
Thanks for clarifying that.
Post a Comment

<< Home
For when Ereignis is not sufficient.

Appropriation appropriates! Send your appropriations to enowning at gmail.com.

View mobile version