You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
These are the proceedings of the discussion held at the Festival of Spoleto in 1989. They are prefaced by a clear, concise introduction by L. Preta, stressing the profound affective implications (thus adopting a psychoanalytical perspective) of the possible anxiety and terror involved in the shift from a model in which knowledge is seen as “possessing something” to one in which knowledge is experienced as “becoming something”.
A well-annotated bibliography, together with a biography of all the contributors (H. von Foerster, A.G. Gargani, F. Corrao, F.J. Varela, G. Vattimo, E. Morin, M. Ceruti) helps the reader to organize the various papers, originating from different disciplines, into a more systematic whole.
H. von Foerster points out that the question of knowledge cannot be addressed without also tackling the question of ignorance, and he dwells in particular on ignorance of the second degree (“I didn't know I didn't know”), which is closely bound to the nature of the subject.
Knowledge as representation or as construction of the world? This question comes up again and again in all the contributions in the volume. According to Foerster, the question is irresolvable. To opt for either of the two formulations involves ethical responsibility. Foerster's choice, according to which it is us who construct the world, implies the ethic of “I shall, or I shall not do this”. I believe that the problem should be addressed by psychoanalysts: are we chroniclers of the analytical event, or its narrators-constructors? In my opinion, we are a little of both: thus, as far as the “narrators-constructors” part is concerned, the analyst too is presented with a problem of ethical responsibility (“Shall I say this to the patient