Moin Thomas,
Du weist in Deinem Text ausdrücklich auf die Nicht-Zufälligkeit der Koordinationen hin. Da
an allem Zufall beteiligt ist bzw. jeglicher Untergrund fluktuiert, wird Dein
Semantik-System nur eine mehr oder weniger grobe Annäherung für interaktionelle
Kompositionen sein. Berücksichtigen könntest Du die Fluktuationen natürlich in den
Offenheiten, auf die Du hinweist.
IT
Am 11.03.2023 um 17:11 schrieb Dr. Dr. Thomas Fröhlich
über PhilWeb <philweb(a)lists.philo.at>at>:
Lieber Karl, lieber Waldemar,
vielleicht findet Ihr von Euch gerade Geschriebenes sinngemäß auch hierein wieder: es ist
ein Kapitel aus einem Beitrag, den ich zum Thema Qualitative Systems Research /
Qualitative Research in Phenomenological Landscape veröffentlichen werde (zunächst peer
reviewed über
qeios.com <http://qeios.com/> ):
Semantic systems, what makes them different?
To act and interact meaningful, a system must be composed of agencies able to implement
the other agency’s momentary processing, as far as relevant for further co-processing.
Contained in this short statement is an idea of process-based, structurally
context-related elements composed not of monadic objects, but of co-processing units that
interact in a non-random, but coordinated way. This, in turn, implies an in actu
attentiveness in the form of a mutually enacted orientation towards each other, combined
with a simultaneous openness to further structured and co-structuring interactions. The
processes’ faces are oriented towards each other, without losing receptivity concerning
further processes. The coordinated and structured co-processing installs multiple dialogs,
with a pertained ability to listen to further dialog partners. Each dialog forms a centre
of emerging systematisation and meaning. Not being static and fixed, continuously engaged
in a move forward instead, each dialogic centre has the shape and function of an emerging
semantic axis, providing structuring information for the further dialogs, as seen from the
focused dialog’s side. So, each system as a whole contains and realises as many
perspectives as dialogs are cooperating in it. The system’s content, then, is a composed
dynamic, a multiplicity of oriented, mutually implementing interactions realising their
individual perspectives, and their genuine perspectivity. The system resembles a cloud,
ready to interact with further processes and process-clouds. Qualitative research aims to
identify the dialog partners, their perspectives, the way they implement information
received and perceived, and their multi-perspectival and orchestrated polycontexturality.
On a further level, system-with-system-interactions are determined, and, in a
non-disjunctive way, also element-with-system, and system-with-element interactions. The
whole picture can only be captured in the form of vivid dynamic visualisations or audible
orchestrations, showing dialogic processing spiralling around emerging semantic axes. A
semantic system resembles an orchestra, or an ensemble of actors playing their momentary
roles, hence. It does not compare to sets of objects, arranged in a lifeless manner. In
fact, it does not contain objects at all; it is made of agents, engaged in selective,
adaptive, implementing structured co-processing. Each participating dialog enacts a
non-absolute, but relationally open inside-to-outside emergence, with its semantic genuine
interactional inside quality not suspended by becoming another inside’s outside. So, the
elements’ fill is preserved, it qualifies them, as well as their structured interactions.
The latter also form a genuine, inside timing, orienting and dynamizing, in the form of an
semantic energisation. So, each focused dialog is an energetic creative centre,
contributing to a systematically energised cooperation in the form of a semantic system.
Ich freue mich über Kritik und Resonanz, und danke Euch für Eure bisherigen, zahlreichen
Anregungen….
Liebe Grüße,
Thomas