Bleep (movie)

 I saw the film when it came out and again last monday (Dec. 20) because my 16 years old daughter wanted to see it. She asked for explanations about many scenes, dialogues, sentences, terms and I realized that it was difficult for me to explain to her my intuitive understanding of the movie. Why?
Because my way of explaining is constrained by the established type of thinking in science and common sense but the ideas expressed in the bleep movie require a new type of thinking and a related new type of explaining.

Einstein said in an interview with Michael Amrine in 1946: "a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels."

That's exactly what we need also here: but I do not see any trace of this consciousness in the words of the bleep sceptics (for example here). Unfortunately!

David K. Johnson - Sleepysand in the Mind’s Eye

The newest critique to Radical Constructivism (RC), an article by David K. Johnson titled "Footprints in the Sand" in Constructivist Foundations 6 (1),  does in no way contribute to understand the weaknesses of Radical Constructivism, it is merely sleepysand in the mind's eye:

• http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/1 
• http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/6/1/090.johnson

At the basis of the obfuscation and jungle of misunderstandings contained in David K. Johnson's article lies the fundamental confusion:

• "a THING, in contrast to our thoughts of that THING, surely does exist outside of thought"

This is well exemplified in a statement found in the new book by David K. Johnson & Matthew Silliman (2009:8):

• "But rocks, in contrast to our thoughts of rocks, surely do exist outside of thought, a fact that alone explains Alison’s stumbling on this rock along a road in Vermont without first thinking it into existence." From: Johnson D. K. & Silliman M. R. (2009) Bridges to the world. Sense, Rotterdam, page 8.

From David K. Johnson's article we can learn three lessons:

1. The fundamental emotion of Johnson's critique “is powered by the authority of universally valid knowledge” (Maturana & Poerksen 2004:41-42) and the basis of its explanations is the reference to objects in the external reality.
2. This kind of criticism to RC originates from an unaware confusion between what belongs to RC and what belongs to Realism.
3. A blind spot makes that critics do not understand how to deal with things in themselves and as a consequence easily overlook the intimate relationship between the two sides of the radical constructivist coin: construction & viability.

Fundamental human factor

In a paper published this year I wrote:

• Recent developments in brain sciences show an increasing tendency to determinism: the denial of the possibility of choice. This is the (logical) consequence (and demonstration) of the underlying assumption that knowledge is the logic of reality. But we are not like stones rolling downhill (Spinoza): the power to choose is a constitutive and unalienable property of human life (Freeman, W. J., How brains make up their minds, New York, 2000). The blessing of freedom and the burden of responsibility: the fundamental human factor!

From: Bettoni, M. & Eggs, C. (2010). "User-centred Knowledge Management: A Constructivist and Socialized View". Constructivist Foundations, Vol. 5, number 3, 130-143. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal

Ernst von Glasersfeld in Beats Biblionetz

In Beats Biblionetz gibt es

• im Bereich Personen
• den Eintrag Ernst von Glaserfeld mit
• Texte
• Definitionen
• Bemerkungen zu Personen, Bücher, Texte, Fragen, Aussagen
• persönliche Bemerkungen
• Biographie (aktualisiert 1999)
• CoautorInnen
• Zitationsnetz

Interessant wäre zu jedem Autor ein "Aussagen-Netz" mit allen wichtigen Aussagen des Autors zu seinen wichtigsten Begriffen aus allen seinen Werken.