LINGUISTIC CLOSURE 2)3)5)
L. LÖFGREN emphasizes the closure character of our languages of all kinds, even mathematical or formal. He writes "The systemic wholeness, or the complementaristic nature, of the language implies a closure, or circumscription, of our linguistic abilities- be they "pure thoughts"communicable in a formal mathematical language, or constructive directions for an experimental interpretation- domain of a physics language. The nature of this closure is not that of a classical boundary of a capacity, like describability, or interpretability. It is a tensioned and hereditary boundary of the systemic capacity of describability- and- interpretability"(2000, p. 17-18)
He explains closure tension as the interactive complementarity between both capacities, where a better describability somehow limits interpretability.
As to the closure as hereditary, he observes that "… at each time we try to communicate… we are confined to a shared language", i.e. the language that we received in its present state (as much as we did receive it) (p. 18)
An excellent example is this very Encyclopedia: Interpretability can be obtained only by multiple interconnections between description terms. This is why so many cross-references are introduced.
As to the "hereditary"aspects, the users of the 2. edition inherit still a closed linguistic system, but whose domain has been much widened.
- 1) General information
- 2) Methodology or model
- 3) Epistemology, ontology and semantics
- 4) Human sciences
- 5) Discipline oriented
To cite this page, please use the following information:
Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science (2020). Title of the entry. In Charles François (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics (2). Retrieved from www.systemspedia.org/[full/url]
We thank the following partners for making the open access of this volume possible: