I think it was Heinz von Foerster who once said that philosophy equals autobiography. In line of this thought I will try to picture “set of questions that inspire me to attend the conference†and also answer the question “how is the conference topics personally significant for me†by brief description of my research (and personal) development.
I started with undergraduate study of mathematical physics and with hope that I will be the one finally getting it all together: consciousness, mind and nature. (Study quickly grounded my ambitions, but I was enjoying it nevertheless – mathematical rigor seem to balance my chaotic nature well.) By the end of the study I encountered neural networks and finished my study with diploma work based on this computing tool. After graduation I got a cognitive science related research job: I was trying to model cognitive phenomena with cellular automata and artificial neural nets. I got increasingly frustrated by the fact that living systems eluded analytical treatment. It seemed more and more obvious that autonomous systems cannot be adequately modeled with Turing machine. Influenced by work of Maturana and Varela I became convinced that in order to better understand living and cognizing systems, different methodology is needed. This is how I started my methodological work which resulted in doctoral dissertation on methods of study of non-trivial systems (i.e. systems where one cannot ignore mutual influence between observer and observed). At this time I met some famous constructivists (like Ernest von Glassersfeld) who helped me realize that study of the living requests re-thinking not only methodological concepts but also scientist’s epistemological presumptions: the idea of detached observer is no longer plausible. That led me to study of constructivism and second order cybernetics. I spent quite some time advocating so called participatory epistemological position — most of my papers and my book (“From Truth to Trustâ€) belong into this category. Believe it or not – I was still not satisfied. I deeply agreed (and still do) with epistemological premises of second order cybernetics, constructivism and also phenomenology but something was still missing. I feel that all these theories are impotent unless one advocating them does not make a big step away from what is today known as science: one has to a) inquire one’s own consciousness (and as a consequence, as Jack would put it, become conscious differently) and b) let go hopes for intersubjective confirmation.
I myself have problems with both of above-mentioned requirements. I a) lack discipline for regular first-person investigation and b) desire/depend on community support and affirmation. The latter is probably my main motive for attending the conference. I feel that the spirit of our time is not kind to curiosity, and those wanting to practice it. That is why I am — very selfishly — striving to build a community of first-person researchers. I feel a great need for the community that would cultivate art of observing without any special ambition… but ambition to see; where not the results but the process of inquiry would be a connecting factor.
As already mentioned, epistemological foundations of first-person inquiry seem quite clear to me but praxis, on the other hand, presents a problem. My clumsy beginner’s attempts include doing first-person inquiry individually, in pairs, and also in a small group I established with this aim. Another attempt to help building the culture of first-person inquiry is a new course I am teaching at my faculty, called “Observing, listening, dialogueâ€, dedicated to first-person research and especially the art of “active witnessingâ€. Any possibility to revive lost art of being at awe excites me very much and this is why I am looking forward to see you all in Ratna Ling.
Urban
PS My wish concerning organization of the meeting: I desire as much time for plain, old fashioned discussion as possible.