I find your notation (below) of the methodology very interesting. I was
going to write about it myself but didn't really know how. I had noticed
the "introspection" but didn't know the term or any of the background.
The term I used in my thoughts and which I actually said aloud last night
to record in with my pocket voice memo - that carries those nightly
thoughts to daylight - was: "self-referring"
For computer scientists that has a special meaning, the principle of
recursivity, I mean. The idea is that recursive algoritms that can
complete their tasks by repeatingly referring to themselves are often
extremely efficient.
I'm not such an experienced programmer and even less an algorithm writer
but did learn to use simple recursions. I don't think I understand them
too deeply and actually only remember the beauty of the idea only because
I read recently this interview of the legendary founder of the GNU
project, Richard Stallman <URL:http://www.gnu.org/people/rms.html>. He was
asked once again where the name from and he explained it marvelously. I'm
afraid that the interview is not on-line but could describe the basic idea
in my own words:
The name GNU comes from the words GNU is Not Unix. As you can see the name
is self explanitory (explains itself) by referring to itself. The
definition is short but quite exact as GNU is *like* Unix but just not
*the* Unix (Linux goes in a way into the GNU-category if you want to put
it that way). Many names in the old Unix/Internet world are like that -
the ELM - PINE is my favourite (as I love trees). Elm (haapa tai joku muu
puu?) was an early Electornic Mail program but later Pine (manty) replaced
it in many places. PINE means, of course, Pine Is Not Elm.
That name game is just funny tricks but .. funny anyway. The real
recursivity is a bit different thing but both are self referring.
Just like I seem to be?
In December when I got to know that the ISOC-people were interested in
this presentation I had really trouble to understand why and how could I
justify it to anyone. First solution I came up with was, once again, this
self-referring. I think the thought was someting like this:
1. Being invited means that there is something special
2. I was invited
3. There is someting special in me
4. I'm just one (quite normal?) representative of our culture
5. There's something special in our culture
6. A representative of our culture should be invited
7. I can be a representative of our culture
8. I can be invited
So, in a way, the fact that I'm invited justifies my being invited.
Or did i miss someting? I know that the "keh�p��telm�" (vicious circle?)
is one of the classical mistakes in philosophy but can't remember if it
was something like this. I guess not. Fuck logic! anyway :)
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Pekka Pihlanto wrote:
> As to the methodology or approach you use, it could be called
> subjectivistic (in contrast to objectivistic, which is used in natural
> sciences, but still also in social sciences) (about objectivism and
> subjectivism, see Burrell, G. & Morgan, G., Sociological Paradigms and
> Organizational Analysis, London: Heineman, 1979). Typical of your
> approach is also introspection (itsehavainnointi) and the use of
> yourself as a research instrument (the term "ihminen itse
> tutkimusmenetelm=E4n=E4" used by Lauri Rauhala, a Finnish phenomenological
> and existential psychologist).
That really sounds familiar. Wonder what the books say .. hope the method
is not proven to be totally useless :)
Thank you for comments and the article once again. I'll read it more
thoughtfully later and perhaps comment then.
+ an + ~ Toni ~ : (t . !