Send Yasmin_discussions mailing list submissions to
yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://ntlab.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions_ntlab.gr
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
yasmin_discussions-request@ntlab.gr
You can reach the person managing the list at
yasmin_discussions-owner@ntlab.gr
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Yasmin_discussions digest..."
THIS IS THE YASMIN-DISCUSSIONS DIGEST
Today's Topics:
1. WWWWASP Discussion - Third week (YASMIN DISCUSSIONS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:16:11 +1100
From: YASMIN DISCUSSIONS <yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr>
To: yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr
Subject: [Yasmin_discussions] WWWWASP Discussion - Third week
Message-ID:
<mailman.2.1573942709.23077.yasmin_discussions_ntlab.gr@ntlab.gr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Hi all,
I would like to follow with the kind of ?strong statements? strategy, just
to, hopefully, heat it up our discussion.
I would like to add something following the direction from Salom?
contribution. I agree with Salome that biotechnology, or bioinformatics
has an intrinsic difference to the current Bioart, or , why not, a possible
Biohistory. In her words, ?comparing helps to understand?, but in the first
cases (Technology + Science; or Science + Science), we are developing
alternative technical skills. In the second cases (Science + Arts, or
Science + Humanities), yes, it is true that we are developing alternative
technical skills, which is totally true an interesting, but at the same
time we are including ?contexts?. We can discuss if the context is already
in the first ones (Nanobiotechnology, for example). I would say that, yes,
it is there, but in an implicit state. So, the second approach (we can say,
?second order interdisciplinarities?), context is recovered explicitly. So,
then, history, for example, becomes an important issue to be analized
inside a ?technical? framework (or esthetics, or poetics, or politics ?). I
do not like to use the word ?technical? here, because I m the kind of
person that strongly support that a pencil and a paper are great technical
tools, which push us to many interesting human actions. But, when we
arrange disciplines following this ?second order? approach, the recovering
of contextual links is made explicitly. This means with the participation
of our mutual self-awareness. And this is an important difference.
Following with Salome statement, which I think may be it has been expressed
by our invited discussants in different forms too. Why is this so
important? Well, it allows to follow our understanding guided by our
contextual relations, as then we are claiming that is not the technical
subject, is not only the concepts, are these inside the context, and the
context is very hybridized. As Roger claimed many times, this does not mean
that the specialized knowledge does not play a role. On the contrary,
specialized, and deep technical knowledge is helpful and it is needed (and
here we can define this as the ?first order interdsiciplinarities? =
nano-bio-thermodynamics), but the second order are helpful too re-linking
us to our contexts, and bridging our shared results and communities, and
hence helping to understand by comparation in different scales (orders).
I think this was kind of a shared though by all of us. However, here I
would like to put another statement. Usually, and it has been addressed a
couple of times in our discussion, this kind of interdisciplinary relations
is much more understood and much more followed inside the artistic and the
humanities communities. However, in my point of view, and due to the
explicit relation with the contextual information in both art and
humanities (which these disciplines are usually more open to be interested
in the science progress and the main science breakthroughs, or at least
this is my impresion), the main advantages when including these are for the
Science community. We, as a former students, and then as professional
researchers, are totally explicitly un-linked to history, to economics, to
philosophy, ?, We are not questioning ourselfs ?what does it mean
productivity??, we have totally removed from our day to day practice any
critical framework. Well, it is true that there are many scientist with
highly critical thinking, but it is not included in our standard education.
This is something that you can create by your own, in the best case. And
this does not mean that this independent or self-education is not
important, or even is not desired (of course, to have lateral and
peripheral educational resources sounds like very good), but the important
may be is that it is not understood as a necessity. However, we can find
everywhere how the meaning of science is becoming more and more closed. We
are approaching a point where science = applied science. Or even worse,
when science = industrial science. Excuse me, I m not saying that link
production, engage industry and entrepreneurship with science is bad at
all. I m just saying that when we pack the meaning of science in this very
restrictive definition, we are just developing a science which is smaller,
and poorer. So, to be honest, I think this is a very important battle for
the science community, and it is very surprising how we, as a community,
are the less engaged circle by far. May be we are the community that are
losing more when not do in it. As I said, I think actual arts and
humanities can develop a better equilibrium education from technical and
contextual frameworks.
Finally, and linking to the word ?necessity?, may be we can follow a link
to our Institutional Vs micro-actions analysis. With the risk to be
simplistic, ad sorry if these words are (remember, I m just trying to heat
it up), may be we can link our educational necessities to institutional
framework, in some extent. I m not saying that our micro-actions does not
represents a necessity. In fact, I do think. However, in words of Marina
Garces (Spanish Philosopher), we do need to recover the meaning of ?us?,
and may be we are just letting go away the institutional framework from
?us?. Could be nowadays we can recover our public institutions to work for
?us?. I know that this is kind of hyper-utopian, and may be even naive
statement, which is always dangerous. But I don t think why we should loose
the institutional spaces, as these spaces are public, and could be
represent a public track to recover our link to ?us? too. Sure, from the
ruins and shambles, but we all know many different spaces that are being
included in these institutional framework, and at the same time are linked
to our micro-negotiations reservoirs.
Hoping that we can re-start our discussing next week with all your voices
from all around the globe.
Cheers,
Guillermo.
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Yasmin_discussions mailing list
Yasmin_discussions@ntlab.gr
http://ntlab.gr/mailman/listinfo/yasmin_discussions_ntlab.gr
------------------------------
End of Yasmin_discussions Digest, Vol 18, Issue 3
*************************************************
