Back
Alicia Juarrero: Context Changes Everything (2023, MIT Press, The MIT Press)

#JuarreroBook Ch. 3 starts out by again highlighting the importance of “context” – which can by temporal, spatial or hybrid (includes aspects of both).

Spatial context is understood extremely broadly and includes “psychosociocultural situations such as economic conditions and social activities, as well as those physical, material, chemical, and biological conditions in which events and processes take place”

Context exerts influence through constraints. Constraints come in two variants: context-independent and context-dependent.

“By precipitating symmetry breaks and making entities and processes covary conditional on each other, constraints turn possibility spaces irregular.”

“Because numerous constraints must be continuously satisfied on many dimensions and time scales simultaneously, possibility spaces also reconfigure moment by moment in response to those multiple constraints, entrenched as well as current new ones. Possibility spaces are thus defined by their probability contour (Buchler 1977) or dynamic signature (Kelso 1995). I call it its profile.”

These possibility spaces are not …

@uh @dcm@social.sunet.se @UlrikeHahn@fediscience.org @MolemanPeter@bookwyrm.social

#JuarreroBook

Nice summary! What were your thoughts about the merits of the proposal?

As I mentioned earlier, I'm rather bothered by the rhetoric, unexplained jargon and lack of argumentation, which still persists in this chapter, which should not be introductory any more. Cases are briefly mentioned, e.g. major transitions in evolution, are then claimed to be examples of constraints operating, but no argument is provided to back those claims and little detail on what those constraints are is provided.

From what I could understand, the proposal seems to be the normal sort of complex system analysis of things, right? What does the chapter add to the tools of that sort of analysis?

I was also puzzled by the fact that she lists several scientific examples from several fields in which there is attention to constraints and dynamics. But I had thought that part of the motivation for the book is that science has neglected that kind of approach. Or is that criticism moved just against modern science (thus understood as the period roughly between XVIII-XIX)? Her points about space being seen as a passive container in modern science at the beginning of the chapter, followed in the end by some points about spacetime becoming a gravitational influence would suggest that reading (i.e. in XXth century science we stopped seeing space as a passive container).

If so, then I'm unclear on the dialectics: instead of being a radical revision of scientific ontology, it would rather be providing philosophical treatment of ontological views already operant in much of science.

What do you think?