| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 國家發展研究所 === 90 === This thesis focuses on the CMLS (“PRC’s ML system” or “Chinese ML system”) and undertakes a sociological observation . This research will try to use the system theoretical techniques set up by German sociologist Niklas Luhman to open a conceptual net-work. This network is used to proceed with observation of the CMLS. The objective of this research is not to be set at the level of understanding what certain people─philosophers, mathematicians, or logicians─are saying. Rather, it is set at the level of observing how they say it. In other words, this thesis is not communicating with them but rather oriented about their ML communications─their communications within the CMLS.
First, the researcher makes certain that Luhman’s observation system can be used as an avenue of entry for this research. Then, the basic concepts, structure, and methods of this research are introduced. As well, the difficulties and limitations we may encounter are explained. Thereupon, the researcher raises the many defining traits that make the CMLS an autopoetic social system. The scope of CMLS was set as the entirety of PRC’s communications about ML. This is the unity (the total corpus) of the vast “information─utterance─understanding” (communication) concerning ML in the PRC. This is a communication system that takes ML as its realm of meaning, and is also a system of autopoesis that uses a peculiar code (formal/non-formal) to carry out observation. When CMLS differentiated itself from its environment and became a system, it served the Chinese science system by taking on the function of and bringing results through “guiding the construction of theory.” Finally, based on goal-oriented considerations, the researcher describes the scope of CMLS’s three relatively certain stages of evolution: past, present, and future.
During the “past” stage, the researcher roughly relates the three times when Western logic passed into Chinese history and the structure and sequence of the two logic theory debates. As well, we will indicate that “excessive” and “emotional” “ethical” or “moral” communications have become a structural cause of CMLS’s sluggish development within the modern scientific system.
In the section on the “present”, the researcher will reveal the surface signs past to present of CMLS’s rapid development. We will indicate that although CMLS had already exited the past stage of suppression, in the first half of the present stage of evolution (1979-1990), CMLS was at the least still placed in a high quantity but middling quality transition stage. Reaching 1990, it can be said that CMLS was in a stage of leaping advancement where quality was refined. What deserves attention is that both in terms of organizations and of texts the CMLS possesses much potential. In other words, as the stepping stone phenomenon continues to occur, the CMLS has not yet achieved substantiality in terms of the emergence of quality, though with the increase of quantity, it can be said that there are already the conditions for the emergence of this quality.
In the “future” stage, the researcher discusses possibilities for the CMLS in the future. We see that the CMLS turns in five main directions for communicating about the future: these directions or perspectives are research environment, education of logic, information acquisition, mutual exchange, and sociology of logic. Next, this researcher─having the identity of a second-order observer─perceives:
1) the possibility of the occurrence of the third logic theory debate;
2) the asymmetry of an observation model that divides the world into subjective/objective, guide/guided;
3) that through reflection about the inside of the system we can set up a criterion about the modernization of CMLS;
4) the possibility that before the CMLS possesses a strong enough power of reflection, it will choose to use postmodernism in order to block and reject the modernization of CMLS.
Finally, based on our observation and reflection, the researcher proposes that the future prospects of the CMLS are as follows: although those who are for or against ML see different things, they should at least learn to observe that “what they are seeing is different.” This realization should allow them to open a channel through which they could “observe each other’s observation.” Therefore, what this research has yielded is perhaps that the best road we can walk down is to promote and maintain healthy mutual understanding.
|
|---|
