Lieber Karl, lieber Waldemar,
vielleicht findet Ihr von Euch gerade Geschriebenes sinngemäß auch hierein wieder: es ist ein Kapitel aus einem Beitrag, den ich zum Thema
Qualitative Systems
Research / Qualitative Research in
Phenomenological Landscape veröffentlichen werde (zunächst peer reviewed über
qeios.com ):
Semantic systems, what makes them different?
To act and interact meaningful, a
system must be composed of agencies able to implement the other agency’s momentary
processing, as far as relevant for further co-processing. Contained in this
short statement is an idea of process-based, structurally context-related
elements composed not of monadic objects, but of co-processing units that
interact in a non-random, but coordinated way. This, in turn, implies an in
actu attentiveness in the form of a mutually enacted orientation towards
each other, combined with a simultaneous openness to further structured and
co-structuring interactions. The processes’ faces are oriented towards each
other, without losing receptivity concerning further processes. The coordinated
and structured co-processing installs multiple dialogs, with a pertained
ability to listen to further dialog partners. Each dialog forms a centre of
emerging systematisation and meaning. Not being static and fixed, continuously
engaged in a move forward instead, each dialogic centre has the shape and
function of an emerging semantic axis, providing structuring information for
the further dialogs, as seen from the focused dialog’s side. So, each system as
a whole contains and realises as many perspectives as dialogs are cooperating
in it. The system’s content, then, is a composed dynamic, a multiplicity of
oriented, mutually implementing interactions realising their individual
perspectives, and their genuine perspectivity. The system resembles a cloud,
ready to interact with further processes and process-clouds. Qualitative
research aims to identify the dialog partners, their perspectives, the way they
implement information received and perceived, and their multi-perspectival and orchestrated
polycontexturality. On a further level, system-with-system-interactions are
determined, and, in a non-disjunctive way, also element-with-system, and
system-with-element interactions. The whole picture can only be captured in the
form of vivid dynamic visualisations or audible orchestrations, showing
dialogic processing spiralling around emerging semantic axes. A semantic system
resembles an orchestra, or an ensemble of actors playing their momentary roles,
hence. It does not compare to sets of objects, arranged in a lifeless manner.
In fact, it does not contain objects at all; it is made of agents, engaged in
selective, adaptive, implementing structured co-processing. Each participating
dialog enacts a non-absolute, but relationally open inside-to-outside emergence,
with its semantic genuine interactional inside quality not suspended by
becoming another inside’s outside. So, the elements’ fill is preserved, it
qualifies them, as well as their structured interactions. The latter also form
a genuine, inside timing, orienting and dynamizing, in the form of an semantic energisation.
So, each focused dialog is an energetic creative centre, contributing to a
systematically energised cooperation in the form of a semantic system.
Ich freue mich über Kritik und Resonanz, und danke Euch für Eure bisherigen, zahlreichen Anregungen….
Liebe Grüße,
Thomas