Open peer commentary on the article “Amusement, Delight, and Whimsy: Humor Has Its Reasons that Reason Cannot Ignore” by Edith K. Ackermann. Upshot: My commentary on this target article departs from the final part dealing with “Ernst-the-rationalist” and attempts to draw out a series of complications in the ways we may understand Ernst von Glasersfeld’s radical constructivism. Special attention is given to the presence of incommensurability and incompatibility, not only between people but more so within any given individual.

Excerpt: It's very easy I think to pick up the first ideas of constructivism, but then to apply them to your daily thinking that takes a long time. But they say it takes seven years to play golf, it takes longer to be a constructivist.

Context: The recent death of Ernst von Glasersfeld opens a space in which there is an important opportunity to re-present and highlight key aspects of his life’s work constructing his model of radical constructivism. Purpose: To make available in a synthetic form one of his particular efforts to elaborate RC in a project that lasted 13 years. This particular project was conducted on the Oikos web site under the title of “Ask von Glasersfeld” and consisted of an opportunity for questioners (...) to pose any type of query directly to von Glasersfeld and normally expect a rapid reply. He was busy composing considered answers right up to his death in November 2010. Method: My intention is to re-present the liveliness of his explicatory interactions with all types of questioners by selecting eight categories of “Questions & Answers” from the web site. Because the selected contents are so extensive these eight categories will be presented in a series of four articles of which this is the first. Implications: This re-presentation of von Glasersfeld’s ideas offers an easily accessible resource for people of all levels of understanding who are seeking to deepen their appreciation of his work. One can come to appreciate not only the lucidity of his writings but also glean “insights” into the person himself, who can be glimpsed between the lines of these various interactions. (shrink)

Context: Under the title “Ask von Glasersfeld,” for 13 years the Oikos web site offered the opportunity to questioners to pose any type of query directly to Ernst von Glasersfeld. Purpose: Based on the collected questions and answers gathered on the web site, this series of four articles re-presents and highlights key aspects of von Glasersfeld’s life’s work constructing his model of radical constructivism. Method: The question-answer pairs are grouped into eight categories. Because the selected contents are so extensive, these (...) eight categories are presented in a series of four articles, of which this is the second and which deals with with von Glasersfeld’s views on human experience. The material is divided into two main themes: the first deals with his views on “experiential reality” and the second deals with the issue of “learning.” Results: One of von Glasersfeld’s main objectives was to define clearly that which we can rationally claim to know. As part of this task, in the first section of this article he deals with the question of how we go about constructing our personal experiential reality. The second part deals with his views on how to apply practically the tenets of radical constructivism in a variety of fields. He is especially interested in redefining what “learning” means and in creating novel approaches to teaching and training students. Implications: This re-presentation of von Glasersfeld’s ideas offers an easily accessible resource for people of all levels of understanding who are seeking to deepen their appreciation of his work. One can come to appreciate not only the lucidity of his writings but also glean “insights” into the person himself, who can be glimpsed between the lines of these various interactions. (shrink)

Context: Over a thirteen-year period Ernst von Glasersfeld directly answered a wide diversity of questions posed to him on the Oikos web site. Purpose: This is the fourth and final article in a series that is based on a selection from all of the questions posed in the thirteen-year period and is aimed at giving prominence to key aspects of his radical constructivist approach. Method: This article deals with the issue of “change,” divided into the two main themes of (i) (...) viability as defined by von Glasersfeld and (ii. the processes of personal learning and change. Implications: This ultimate article of this series offers an important source of original material for those readers who are seeking to elaborate their understanding of radical constructivism. (shrink)

Purpose: Ernst von Glasersfeld has dedicated a lot of effort to trying to define just where his views and those of his friend Humberto Maturana part company, epistemologically speaking (Glasersfeld 1991, 2001). As a contribution to unravelling this puzzle I propose in this article to delineate just where they seem to differ most and why these differences arise. Approach: Part of my contribution is to propose drawing a distinction between von Glasersfeld's Radical Constructivism as the last viable outpost of constructivism (...) before entering into the domain of solipsism, in contrast to Maturana's position which is saved from being located within the solipsistic domain by virtue of his ideas on "structure determined systems" and his theory of how language arises in human experience. Findings: Von Glasersfeld's puzzle arises due to what Kant called "transcendental illusion," that is, the error of trying to encompass two mutually untranslatable phenomenal domains within the same language framework. Conclusion: After an examination of some of the crucial differences between von Glasersfeld and Maturana I typify Maturana's positioning as that of "radical realism" in contrast to von Glasersfeld's "radical constructivism.". (shrink)

Purpose: The problem of entering a “mainstream” is analyzed by looking at the problem of recursive splitting in the use of constructivism, illustrating this problem with the special case of personal construct psychology. Problem: In this opinion article I outline a number of issues intrinsic to radical constructivism, and also to other less radical forms of constructivism, which tend to lead its users in the opposite direction to any detectable “mainstream,” indeed leading them steadily away from any unifying flow that (...) might eventually leak into a mainstream. Method: By analyzing the “constructivist field” with regard to a series of “miss-takes” easily made by those approaching the radical constructivist outlook, and also with regard to an intrinsic tendency towards idiosyncratic individualism, I want to show the deepening degree of fragmentizing and splitting that I regard as endemic to the constructivist epistemology. I also describe how the metaphoric power of the term “constructivism” has been lost and has now become a dead metaphor, and I use the “gyres” metaphor of W. B. Yeats to describe the impending chaos and dissolution of the constructivisms. Implications: I make six main suggestions as to how this state of events might possibly be slowed down or even recovered from, thus avoiding ongoing deterioration and its self-disintegrating conclusion. (shrink)

I propose constructive alternatives to selected statements made by Druzhinin in his description of the irreal, and I remind ourselves that the words we use are not the experiences we are attempting….

This chapter introduces the central concerns of Humberto Maturana's theory of autopoiesis as they relate to the domain of psychotherapy. Several common terms which are redefined within his theory in an unusual manner are unpacked as to their idiosyncratic significance including the expressions, 'linguistic behaviour', 'languaging', 'structure determinism', 'organisation', 'structure' and others. The source material used for this exposition include not only the cited texts but also several workshops from which verbatim transcripts are often used in the form of brief (...) quotations. I have attempted to stay as close to the original material as possible in order to convey both the meaning and the texture of Maturana's work. This is not an easy theory to grasp ranging as it does across several specialist fields from the neurophysiology of perception through social communication to epistemology. Nor are the implicative transitions from a theory of biology to the praxis of psychotherapy without complexity and controversy. Nonetheless, Maturana offers a novel theory of conversations which could form the basis of a much needed new paradigm for personal change. (shrink)

Two arguments are unfolded against the viability and advisability of applying the notion of autopoiesis to third order systems. The first argument comes from the domain of psychotherapeutic praxis and elaborates a critique of 'boundary' and 'family' as third order phenomena. The second argument , coming from the domain of ethics, uses the paramount individuality of personal consciousness to demonstrate that any third order human system configured on the metaphor of autopoiesis would necessarily be oppressive, inhuman, and parasocial.

Open peer commentary on the article “What Can the Global Observer Know?” by Diana Gasparyan. Upshot: Starting from the problem of having to write in a language heavily saturated by realism, this commentary limits itself to restating some key notions of radical constructivism, which, by paying attention to the strict limits of what we can claim to know, can more readily eliminate notions such as the “omniscient interpreter.”.

Open peer commentary on the target article “Who Conceives of Society?” by Ernst von Glasersfeld. First paragraph: Here I underline two features of radical constructivism that render it more difficult to “cross-over” into the “social.” Firstly, the fact that we, as observers, do not have any privileged access to “external objective reality,” and secondly, that we do not have any privileged access to what we call our “internal subjective reality” either.

Open peer commentary on the article “Cybernetic Foundations for Psychology” by Bernard Scott. Upshot: Given the fragmental state of what is known as “psychology,” I think it would be an error to attempt to “unify” such chaos and that efforts would be better spent dissolving the illusion that “psychology” exists and instead redesigning a genuinely psychological psychology that has relevance to daily living.

Context: Up to the time of his death in 2010, Ernst von Glasersfeld had, for the previous thirteen years, directly answered a wide variety of questions posed to him on the Oikos web site. Purpose: This is the third article in a series of four that is based on a selection from all of the questions posed in the thirteen-year period and is aimed at highlighting key aspects of radical constructivism. Method: The question-answer pairs are grouped into eight categories, and (...) each article deals with two of these categories. This third article deals with the issue of “constructing,” split into the two main themes of (i) the personal construing system and (ii) the threat that the radical constructivist view of the personal constructing system holds for realism. Results: In the first part of this article, von Glasersfeld emphasises his view of the individual’s construction of personal meaning as a phenomenon of “private language.” The second part outlines some of the implications of radical constructivism for “realism.” Implications: Von Glasersfeld’s answers offer an easily accessible resource for people of all levels of understanding who are seeking to deepen their appreciation of his work. (shrink)