Cybernetics
& Human Knowing - Thesaurus pilot project
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Domain |
|||||||||||||||||||
Definition |
|||||||||||||||||||
| …"Different domains cannot explain each other because it
is not possible to generate the phenomena of one domain with the elements of another; one
remains in the same domain" (IESC, EA)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Principia Cybernetica (web) |
|||||||||||||||||||
| [Node to be completed] A set of actions is referred to as a domain. Theories (models of the world) we construct are never universal. They are always applicable to some part of the reality only. This part is the domain of the theory. When we apply a theory, we assume that only those actions take place which are within the domain. Make an action which is not included in the domain, and the whole theory may become out of place. The states of the world are defined as subsets of the domain of the theory. Other actions are ignored; they may be either irrelevant, when they have no impact on the legitimacy of the theory, or prohibited, when they make the theory unapplicable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Encyclopedia Autopoietica |
|||||||||||||||||||
| A key concept extensively applied in Maturana and Varela's writings.
The term generally connotes a 'realm' or 'sphere' circumscribing: (1) the relations among
observed systems and the unities (medium) with which they can be observed to engage (e.g.,
phenomenological domain) or (2) the foregoing plus all potential states of relation and/or
activity among the given unities (e.g., domain of interactions). With respect to the
phenomenology of living systems, the term is applied as a illustrative descriptor for the
"world brought forth" -- a circumscription of experiential flux via reference to
current states and possible trajectories. Maturana and Varela define a number of domains
in developing autopoietic theory's formal aspects into a phenomenological framework. Domains are most typically introduced to circumscribe exclusive realms or sets -- i.e., they serve as categorization constructs for sorting out unities and phenomena. The functional definition of domains by the unities and/or relations constitutive of them makes them definitional constructs which generate (by implication regarding entitative status, interrelationship, or prospective occurrence) their own discrete referential extent. This definitional reliance upon the constitutive elements provides a basis for differentiating domains in terms of differentials among unities and/or relations. As such, "...different domains cannot explain each other because it is not possible to generate the phenomena of one domain with the elements of another; one remains in the same domain. One domain may generate the elements of another domain, but not its phenomenology, which in each domain is specified by the interactions of its elements, and the elements of a domain become defined only through the domain that they generate." (Maturana & Varela, 1980, p. 55) Owing to this "exclusivity", epistemological issues must be qualified with respect to both (a) the cognitive domain of the observer and (b) the domain(s) with which the observer is engaged at a given moment. "Any nexus between different domains is provided by the observer who can interact as if with a single entity ..." (Maturana & Varela, 1980, p. 55) In so interacting, the observer can generate any of a potentially unlimited set of relations. These relations "... as states of neuronal activity arising from concurrent interactions of the observer in different domains (physical and relational) constitute the elements of a new domain in which the observer interacts as a thinking system, but do not reduce one phenomenological domain into another." (Maturana & Varela, 1980, p. 55) The term "domain" typically insinuates a realm of dynamics. Maturana and Varela conventionally reserve the term space for the static context in which unities are delineated. However, there are occasional instances in the literature where "domain" and "space" are apparently used as interchangeable terms denoting a general "realm" or "sphere" or "set". Cf. space, domain of *, cognitive domain, explanation, phenomenological domain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
International Encyclopedia of Systems & Cybernetics |
|||||||||||||||||||
| "A closed universe of existence which we can never cross the boundary
of, once we are in". (G. KAMPIS, 1989, p. 89) A domain delimits the set of possible transformations for a system. Domains are the results of the etablisment of coordinated constraints. M. BODEN gives as an example the classical rules of harmony in music. No important work can be done outside the constraints of some domain. New domains can be created only by breaking existing constraints, and replacing them with others, possibly less stringent, or more productive, or simply different. This implies at least in some measure, that we are mental prisoners within ourselves (and should thus try to take the measure, of our inner mental space). Te KAMPIS definition is inspired from G. SPENCER-BROWN and F. VARELA, i.e. is related to te concept of organizational closure, by virtue of which the system is maintaining its own organizational invariance. KAMPIS comments: "The most important point is that a domain has its own structure that connot be studied direcly from another domain (for instance, by an observer), it can only be approximated by the internal structure of another domain. Of course, different domains might have parallel evolution and this enables the formulation of approximate scientific laws that represent, to some extent, what is going on in another domain. However, our original interest is in the things themselves and it is a disappointment (faced by scientists of this century) that they are not available directly" (p. 89-90). This aspect is important for systemic epistemologi. |
|||||||||||||||||||
