000001618 001__ 1618
000001618 005__ 20150218104223.0
000001618 041__ $$aanglicky
000001618 100__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)gibneypaul$$aGibney, Paul
000001618 245__ $$aReimagining psychotherapy: An interview with Hillary and Bradford Keeney
000001618 520__ $$aMany would say that the field of psychotherapy has lost its way, and has slipped into a lifeless space of mediocrity with an emphasis on interpretation, where therapists are more concerned with models of change than the mysteries of change itself. The field has witnessed the rise and demise of one model (and its associated gurus), after another. Through their collaboration, BRADFORD KEENEY, one of the great thinkers of family therapy, and HILLARY KEENEY, a scholar of cybernetics and creative transformation, offer a wake up call to therapists to reinvent their practice, and recognise that models dumb them down and prevent them from finding their own gifts and talents. PAUL GIBNEY talks with the Keeneys about their desire to help therapists return to what has been all but lost in the field of psychotherapy—an emphasis on psychotherapy as a performing art. They suggest the field is so attached to narrative and interpretation that it has removed itself from the heartbeat of life. They point to a regard for absurdity as one of the ultimate expressions of empathy, call for an end to interpretation, and encourage therapists to jump into the stream of interactivity and embrace the creativity that makes a session feel alive. A discussion of cybernetics and its central metaphor of circularity, helps to clarify the misunderstandings of this crucial component of the processes of change. Gibney concludes with the suggestion that psychotherapy as a performing art, informed and enlivened by helpful doses of heart-inspired interaction and absurdity, just might be the frame of psychotherapy’s next evolutionary space.
000001618 65017 $$astudijní materiály/autorské práce
000001618 8564_ $$s590589$$uhttps://systemika.g-i.cz/record/1618/files/Gibney, Paul - Remaining psychotherapy an Interview with Hillary and Bradford Keeney.pdf
000001618 980__ $$aARTICLE

000001620 001__ 1620
000001620 005__ 20150218104223.0
000001620 041__ $$aanglicky
000001620 100__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)grahamjohn$$aGraham, John
000001620 245__ $$aSome Reflections Upon Creative Thinking in the Nineties
000001620 520__ $$aAs people have had opportunities to encounter different ideas and ways of thinking, many have developed increased awareness of the stories, myths and legends of humankind.
000001620 65017 $$astudijní materiály/autorské práce
000001620 773__ $$pSeized by Agreement, Swamped by Understanding.  Lloyd Fell, David Russell & Alan Stewart (Eds.) A collection of papers to celebrate the visit to Australia in August 1994 by Humberto Maturana$$y1994
000001620 8564_ $$s30448$$uhttps://systemika.g-i.cz/record/1620/files/Graham, John - Some Reflections Upon Creative Thinking in the Nineties.pdf
000001620 980__ $$aARTICLE

000001622 001__ 1622
000001622 005__ 20150218104223.0
000001622 041__ $$aanglicky
000001622 100__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)hanleysusan$$aHanley, Susan
000001622 245__ $$aOn constructivism
000001622 520__ $$aCertainly we are all aware of the bleak report card that our nation's schools have received from various educational research organizations.  In comparison to school children from other countries, American children lag far behind in achievements tests, especially those in the math and science areas (Raizen and Michelsohn, 1994).  Unfortunately, the situation is even worse than it appears.  Studies show that even students who score well on standardized tests often are unable to successfully integrate or contrast memorized facts and formulae with real-life applications outside the school room (Yager, 1991).  L.B. Resnick (1987) has commented that practical knowledge (common sense) and school knowledge are becoming mutually exclusive; many students see little connection between what they learn in the classroom with real life.
000001622 65017 $$astudijní materiály/autorské práce
000001622 773__ $$n9255745$$pNSF Cooperative Agreement$$y1994
000001622 8564_ $$s34764$$uhttps://systemika.g-i.cz/record/1622/files/Hanley, Susan - On Constructivism.pdf
000001622 980__ $$aARTICLE

000001624 001__ 1624
000001624 005__ 20150218104223.0
000001624 041__ $$aanglicky
000001624 100__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)hutchinsonjamie$$aHutchinson, Jamie
000001624 245__ $$aNerve center of the cybernetic world$$bHeinz von Foerster and the Biological Computer Laboratory
000001624 520__ $$aThe weird and wonderful field of cybernetics flourished during the heyday of U.S. post–World War II research, when federal dollars poured by the millions into university and industry laboratories and the rule for oversight often seemed to be “anything goes.” No field of inquiry tested that rule more vigorously than cybernetics, whose practitioners disrespected disciplinary boundaries and frowned on the postponement of inconvenient philosophical questions. And within cybernetics, no institution better embodied the bold spirit of the new science than the U of I’s Biological Computer Laboratory. BCL operated from 1958 to 1975 under 25 different grants, producing hundreds of publications and several pioneering machines. The lab attracted dozens of world renowned researchers to fill permanent and visiting staff positions. Students of engineering, natural and physical sciences, arts, and humanities gravitated to BCL, carrying its lessons into their varied career pursuits. Little appreciated on campus today, BCL was a bottom-up forerunner of the university’s current interdisciplinary efforts in bioengineering, cognitive science, art and technology, cultural computing, and human–computer intelligent interaction.
000001624 65017 $$astudijní materiály/autorské práce
000001624 8564_ $$s1818714$$uhttps://systemika.g-i.cz/record/1624/files/Hutchinson, Jamie - Nerve center of cybernetic world.pdf
000001624 980__ $$aARTICLE

000001626 001__ 1626
000001626 005__ 20150218104223.0
000001626 041__ $$aanglicky
000001626 100__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)chiarigabriele$$aChiari, Gabriele
000001626 245__ $$aConstructs and trinities: kelly and varela on complementarity and knowledge
000001626 520__ $$aThe paper is aimed at showing similarities and differences between the views of complementarity in relation to the creation and structure of cognitive systems held by George A. Kelly and Francisco J. Varela, both of them sharing a constructivist metatheory. Though operating in different times and in different fields (psychology and biology), their notions of construct and trinity, respectively, represent a similar departure from classical logic and dialectics, and lead to similar implications as to the problem of knowledge and the hierarchical structure of cognitive systems. Even if, because of their different views on the dependence/independence of reality from the observer's act of construing, Kelly's constructivism can be considered as trivial and Varela's constructivism as radical, the triviality of the former is questioned.
000001626 65017 $$astudijní materiály/autorské práce
000001626 700__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)nuzzomlaura$$aNuzzo, M. Laura
000001626 773__ $$pThe Seventh International Congress on Personal Construct Psychology, Memphis, TN, August 5th-9th$$y1987
000001626 8564_ $$s24352$$uhttps://systemika.g-i.cz/record/1626/files/Chiari, Gabriele.pdf
000001626 980__ $$aARTICLE

000001629 001__ 1629
000001629 005__ 20150218104223.0
000001629 041__ $$aanglicky
000001629 100__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)chronakianna$$aChronaki, Anna
000001629 245__ $$aConstructivism as an `energiser for thinking'!
000001629 520__ $$aThis paper aims to re-examine recent criticism on radical constructivism as an inadequate research framework for discussing learning and teaching. A number of questions are raised in an attempt to focus attention not on the theory itself but on what the theory may imply for the learner's rights. Finally it is suggested that even though the theory cannot provide clear cut answers to issues related to learning as a contextualised practice in a social and political setting, it still challenges research theorising and contributes to an educational discourse.
000001629 65017 $$astudijní materiály/autorské práce
000001629 8564_ $$s56049$$uhttps://systemika.g-i.cz/record/1629/files/Chromaki, Anna - Constructivism as an energiser for thinking.pdf
000001629 980__ $$aARTICLE

000001632 001__ 1632
000001632 005__ 20150222204116.0
000001632 041__ $$aanglicky
000001632 100__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)kennyvincent$$aKenny, Vincent
000001632 245__ $$aDistinguishing Ernst von Glasersfeld’s “Radical Constructivism” from Humberto Maturana’s “Radical Realism”
000001632 520__ $$aErnst von Glasersfeld has dedicated a lot of effort to trying to define just where his views and those of his friend Humberto Maturana part company, epistemologically speaking (Glasersfeld 1991, 2001).As a contribution to unravelling this puzzle I propose in this article to delineate just where they seem to differ most and why these differences arise.
000001632 600__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)maturanahumberto$$aMaturana, Humberto
000001632 600__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)glasersfeldernstvon$$aGlasersfeld, Ernst von
000001632 65017 $$astudijní materiály/autorské práce
000001632 65017 $$azlatý fond
000001632 653__ $$0SUBJECT|(SYS)radikalnikonstruktivismus$$aradikální konstruktivismus
000001632 653__ $$0SUBJECT|(SYS)kritickauvaha$$akritická úvaha
000001632 8564_ $$s142351$$uhttps://systemika.g-i.cz/record/1632/files/Kenny Vincent - Distinguishing Ernst von Glasersfelds Radical Constructivism from Humberto Maturanas Radical Realism.pdf
000001632 909C4 $$dhttp://www.oikos.org/distinguishingevg%27sradicalcomstructivism.pdf$$pOikos
000001632 980__ $$aARTICLE

000001634 001__ 1634
000001634 005__ 20150218104223.0
000001634 041__ $$aanglicky
000001634 100__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)kriegerdavidj$$aKrieger, David J.
000001634 245__ $$aOperationalizing Self-organization Theory for Social Science Research
000001634 520__ $$aI would like to begin with a short description of some of the general attributes of all systems as such. These are the general characteristics of any system whatever, regardless of the level of emergent order to which it may belong. On the basis of this general theoretical background I would then like to propose criteria for distinguishing between different kinds of systems. This is important, since concepts, models, and methods developed in order to describe and analyse one kind of system cannot without risk of confusion be applied to systems of a different kind. I will propose that there are three distinct levels of emergent order and therefore three different kinds of systems: mechanical, biological, and semiotic. On each level of emergent order the basic concepts of systems theory take on a different meaning and the methods of systems analysis become different. In other words, each level of emergent order and each kind of system hat its own specific science. If the physical and biological sciences are concerned with mechanical and organic systems, then the social sciences are concerned with the description of semiotic or meaning systems.
000001634 65017 $$astudijní materiály/autorské práce
000001634 773__ $$pThe SOEIS Conference: Bielefeld, March 27/28 1998$$y1998
000001634 8564_ $$s97044$$uhttps://systemika.g-i.cz/record/1634/files/Krieger, David J. - Operationalizing Self-organization Theory for Social Science Resarch.pdf
000001634 980__ $$aARTICLE

000001638 001__ 1638
000001638 005__ 20150218104223.0
000001638 041__ $$aanglicky
000001638 100__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)krohnwolfgang$$aKrohn, Wolfgang
000001638 245__ $$aSelf-organization -  The Convergence of Ideas
000001638 520__ $$aThe concept of self-organization that has come into use as the generic term for a category of related, yet nonidentical concepts that are being applied within the context of various fields of research: autopoiesis, synergetics, dissipative structures, self-referential systems, and deterministic chaos. The purpose of this introduction is a) to give a short overview on the most important fields in which these concepts have been developed and defined, b) to show how they came into contact with one another, interconnected, and became part of a research programme; and c) to set forth some categories by means of which the basic approach and its potential importance for the sciences becomes clearly visible; and d) to provide the opportunity for discussing some specific issues on the use of the concept in the field of social sciences.
000001638 653__ $$0 SUBJECT|(SYS)autopoiesa$$aautopoiesa
000001638 65017 $$astudijní materiály/autorské práce
000001638 700__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)kuppergunter$$aKüpper, Günter
000001638 700__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)novotnyhelga$$aNovotny. Helga
000001638 773__ $$c1-12$$pSelf-organization: Portrait of a Scientific Revolution. Edited by Krohn W. / Küppers, G. / Novotny, H.. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers$$y1990
000001638 8564_ $$s52789$$uhttps://systemika.g-i.cz/record/1638/files/Krohn, W. a Kuppers, G. ed. - Self-organisation - The convergence of Ideas.pdf
000001638 980__ $$aARTICLE

000001641 001__ 1641
000001641 005__ 20150218104223.0
000001641 041__ $$aanglicky
000001641 100__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)laszloalexander$$aLaszlo, Alexander
000001641 245__ $$aSystems Theories: Their Origins, Foundations, and Development
000001641 520__ $$aThe relationship between systems theory and the study of perception is one of critical im- portance to our understanding of the changing nature of human cognitive maps at the dawn of the 21st century. The conceptual frameworks that embed our perceptions and their interpretations, and condition the depth of our awareness and its rise to consciousness, are shifting drastically as the nature of human relations transforms. Disciplinary efforts to interpret the meaning and sig- nificance of social change run the gamut of deconstructionist post-modern exposition, ranging from predictive/empirical, to cultural/interpretative to critical/post-structural epistemological stances. In areas of human endeavor concerned with valuing and assessing human achievement, the result has been a multiplicity of possible interpretive frameworks and a concomitant frag- mentation of disciplinary worldviews. On the one hand, the natural sciences are moving toward theoretical syntheses through the construction of grand unified theories in physics and similar embracing theoretical frameworks in other realms of inquiry. On the other, the social sciences seem to manifest a countervailing trend toward relativistic positions on issues of cognitive evo- lution. This is compounded by a corresponding reticence for the postulation of generally appli- cable normative viewpoints on behavioral and attitudinal orientations that serve to meet the mounting challenges of uncertainty in our rapidly changing world.
000001641 65017 $$astudijní materiály/autorské práce
000001641 700__ $$0AUTHOR|(SYS)krippnerstanley$$aKrippner, Stanley
000001641 773__ $$c47-74$$pSystems Theories and A Priori Aspects of Perception. J.S. Jordan (Ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science$$y1998
000001641 8564_ $$s76950$$uhttps://systemika.g-i.cz/record/1641/files/Laszlo, Alexander.pdf
000001641 980__ $$aARTICLE