Anyone heard of Radical Constructivism...

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Anyone heard of Radical Constructivism...

Postby acinteyyo » Sat May 17, 2014 1:13 pm


I like Ernst von Glasersfeld view. Have you ever heard about Radical Constructivism?

best wishes, acinteyyo
Last edited by acinteyyo on Sat May 17, 2014 6:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:

vinasp
Posts: 1316
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Anyone heard of Radical Constructivism...

Postby vinasp » Sat May 17, 2014 1:47 pm

Hi acinteyyo,

Yes I have heard of it. I have some links in my bookmarks.

But I don't remember what it is [old age]. Can you summerize it for us?

Kind regards, Vincent.

vinasp
Posts: 1316
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Anyone heard of Radical Constructivism...

Postby vinasp » Sat May 17, 2014 2:08 pm

Hi everyone,

There is a Wikipedia page on Constructivist epistemology - link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructi ... istemology

There is a section on Radical constructivism.

Ernst von Glasersfeld was a prominent proponent of radical constructivism. This claims that knowledge is not a commodity which is transported from one mind into another. Rather, it is up to the individual to "link up" specific interpretations of experiences and ideas with their own reference of what is possible and viable. That is, the process of constructing knowledge, of understanding, is dependent on the individual's subjective interpretation of their active experience, not what "actually" occurs. Understanding and acting are seen by radical constructivists not as dualistic processes, but 'circularly conjoined'.[1]

Constructivist Foundations is a free online journal publishing peer reviewed articles on radical constructivism by researchers from multiple domains.
See also: Francisco Varela, Humberto Maturana and Heinz von Foerster

Kind regards, Vincent.

User avatar
Mkoll
Posts: 4160
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:55 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: California, USA

Re: Anyone heard of Radical Constructivism...

Postby Mkoll » Sat May 17, 2014 4:11 pm

I like the first two minutes of the video. What lies outside rational thought is indeed much more important than what lies within. I think that's the root of all religion and spirituality.

Thanks for sharing.
Peace,
James

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: Anyone heard of Radical Constructivism...

Postby acinteyyo » Sat May 17, 2014 6:18 pm

Hi vinasp,

I've just stumbled across Radical Constructivism recently. I have the feeling that it correlates with the Dhamma. Particularly when it comes to the "All". Up to now it's still just an assumption of mine. When I get more familiar with the idea I will share my thoughts on it.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:

User avatar
Unrul3r
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:29 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Anyone heard of Radical Constructivism...

Postby Unrul3r » Sat May 17, 2014 7:53 pm

acinteyyo wrote:I like Ernst von Glasersfeld view...


Hello acinteyyo,

If you like Radical Constructivism, I think you might also find interesting Perceptual Control Theory. Here's a leaflet explaining it briefly. It's based on cybernetics & control systems but integrates biology (nervous system) and psychology (perception & intention).

:anjali:

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: Anyone heard of Radical Constructivism...

Postby acinteyyo » Sat May 17, 2014 8:54 pm

Unrul3r wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:I like Ernst von Glasersfeld view...


Hello acinteyyo,

If you like Radical Constructivism, I think you might also find interesting Perceptual Control Theory. Here's a leaflet explaining it briefly. It's based on cybernetics & control systems but integrates biology (nervous system) and psychology (perception & intention).

:anjali:


Thanks for the link Unrul3r.
From the short overview I've got, PCT seems to make the same mistake like many other methods of describing our perception. It builds its foundation on perception and then tries to explain perception in terms of what lies beyond perception.
Radical Constructivism, as I understand it, acknowledges that we can't reach beyond perception. We construct our "reality" from what we perceive but we have absolutely no means to reach further than that. Usually we think we can tell something about what created our perception if we look at what we perceive. We are convinced that our idea of what caused our perception lies "outside" perception and that it must be the "real reality outside". But actually we constructed a subjective and personal "reality" which doesn't tell us anything about "what lies beyond" because it is part of what we perceive. So in Radical Constructivism there most probably is something beyond perception but we can't say anything about it. Not a known or rather knowable reality beyond perception is what creates our perception but we construct a viable reality for ourselves which correlates with our own perception, never really reaching beyond perception.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:

User avatar
Unrul3r
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:29 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Anyone heard of Radical Constructivism...

Postby Unrul3r » Sat May 17, 2014 9:01 pm

acinteyyo wrote:Thanks for the link Unrul3r.
From the short overview I've got, PCT seems to make the same mistake like many other methods of describing our perception. It builds its foundation on perception and then tries to explain perception in terms of what lies beyond perception.


No problem.

I've investigated the theory thoroughly and never found such claim. It's all about perception & mental constructs (which, of course, are also perceptions). Where did you get that idea?

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: Anyone heard of Radical Constructivism...

Postby acinteyyo » Sat May 17, 2014 11:02 pm

Unrul3r wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:Thanks for the link Unrul3r.
From the short overview I've got, PCT seems to make the same mistake like many other methods of describing our perception. It builds its foundation on perception and then tries to explain perception in terms of what lies beyond perception.


No problem.

I've investigated the theory thoroughly and never found such claim. It's all about perception & mental constructs (which, of course, are also perceptions). Where did you get that idea?


I may be wrong about PCT. Give me some time to investigate it thoroughly. The idea seems to work like a simple feedback control system and I think there are similarities to determinism.
I don't get why behaviour should be in control of perception? The problem I see is, that behaviour is perceived and I don't think you can coherently assume that perception is controlled by something which actually derives from perception.
However I want to point out that we experience the appearance of perception and the appearance behaves in a certain way as well as behaviour appears. They are inseparable.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:

User avatar
Unrul3r
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:29 pm
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 1006
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Anyone heard of Radical Constructivism...

Postby Unrul3r » Sun May 18, 2014 8:15 am

acinteyyo wrote:I may be wrong about PCT. Give me some time to investigate it thoroughly. The idea seems to work like a simple feedback control system and I think there are similarities to determinism.
I don't get why behaviour should be in control of perception? The problem I see is, that behaviour is perceived and I don't think you can coherently assume that perception is controlled by something which actually derives from perception.
However I want to point out that we experience the appearance of perception and the appearance behaves in a certain way as well as behaviour appears. They are inseparable.

best wishes, acinteyyo


Indeed they are inseparable and this accounted for in the theory. Anyways, I'm not here to argue for or against it, I just thought you might find it interesting and shared it. If you don't like it or agree with it, it's no problem.

Good luck with the investigation. I wish you well.

:namaste:

User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1055
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Which number is larger than 1000 and less than 1002: 6
Location: Neuburg/Donau, Germany

Re: Anyone heard of Radical Constructivism...

Postby acinteyyo » Sun May 18, 2014 8:45 am

Unrul3r wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:I may be wrong about PCT. Give me some time to investigate it thoroughly. The idea seems to work like a simple feedback control system and I think there are similarities to determinism.
I don't get why behaviour should be in control of perception? The problem I see is, that behaviour is perceived and I don't think you can coherently assume that perception is controlled by something which actually derives from perception.
However I want to point out that we experience the appearance of perception and the appearance behaves in a certain way as well as behaviour appears. They are inseparable.

best wishes, acinteyyo


Indeed they are inseparable and this accounted for in the theory. Anyways, I'm not here to argue for or against it, I just thought you might find it interesting and shared it. If you don't like it or agree with it, it's no problem.

Good luck with the investigation. I wish you well.

:namaste:

That was just a first impression and it is interesting indeed. I can't say I know what the theory is about so I don't have a fixed view about it. I'm more interested in getting to know more about Radical Constructivism at the moment.
We can have a talk about PCT another day ;)

best wishes, acinteyyo
Pubbe cāhaṃ bhikkhave, etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññāpemi, dukkhassa ca nirodhaṃ. (M.22)
Api cāhaṃ, āvuso, imasmiṃyeva byāmamatte kaḷevare, sasaññimhi samanake lokañca paññāpemi lokasamudayañca lokanirodhañca lokanirodhagāminiñca paṭipadan. (AN4.45)

:anjali:


Return to “Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests