Thesis (M. Sc.)--University of Sydney, 2002. / Title from title screen (viewed Apr. 24, 2008). Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science to the Unit for the History and Philosophy of Science, Faculty of Science. Degree awarded 2002; thesis submitted 2001. Includes bibliography. Also available in print form.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Texas, May, 2007. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2012. / Prof. F P Cilliers acted, until his death on 31 July 2011, as the original promotor of this dissertation / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation departs from the argument that an encounter with complexity exposes the breakdown of traditional doctrines that have been taken for granted for too long (markedly modernist reductionism). Contrary to reductionist strategies that rely on the methods of analysis and isolation, the study of complex phenomena focuses on the dynamic relations and organisation of systems and their environments. Although the proliferation of ideas concerning the notion of complexity is abundant, there is no agreed upon definition that informs an overarching ‘Theory of Complexity.’ This problem is addressed by following the historical development in the field of systyms thinking. A distinction is made between ‘restricted’ and ‘general’ theories of complexity. The study problematises the conceptual and empirical difficulties of studying complex phenomena. The impossibility of being able to have complete knowledge of complex systems is discussed in detail. It is argued that although the study of complexity serves as an alternative approach to reductionist approaches, our knowledge of complexity in principle remains a reduction thereof. This insight leads to the claim that the study of complex phenomena is at best a post-reductionist effort, which is necessarily a critical position. It is argued that the ‘complexity approach’ coincides with other poststructural approaches in the field of philosophy in general and with deconstruction in particular. However, situating the complexity approach within poststructuralism is not unproblematic, seeing that poststructural forms of critique are marred by problems of legitimation. Allegiance to postmetaphysical ideals implies that objective grounds for justifying or warranting the choice of norms from where to launch critical inquiry are sacrificed. A deconstructive reading of the Kantian concept of ‘critique’ reveals a double movement that is at work in the concept. This double bind displaces the definition of critique to change to mean ‘critique as stricture.’ From this perspective the logic of différance is at work in critical analysis and the limitations of our meaning making strategies are exposed. It is suggested that ‘critique as stricture’ is a poststructural form of critical inquiry that regains legitimacy by operating in the tension of the force field created by antagonistic positions. A provisional grounding in the name of the limit emerges. The kind of thinking that can be cognisant of this general movement of ‘critique as stricture’ is found in the notion of ‘complex thinking.’ By drawing on Derrida’ and Morin’s reappropriation of Bataille’s distinction between the restricted and general economy, it is demonstrated how complex thinking is operating within the movement of the general economy. The study concludes with the argument that informed by ‘critique as stricture,’ the complexity approach progresses to what Cilliers calls ‘critical complexity.’ This brand of complexity distinguishes itself by a normative turn, which is distinguished by three imperatives: 1) the Provisional Imperative, 2) the Critical Reflexive Imperative and 3) the World-disclosing Imperative. All of these operate under the influence of the general economy, which allows critical inquiry to be grounded and legitimised in the tension of thinking antagonistic positions together without reducing them to one another. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In hierdie proefskrif word aangevoer dat die verskynsel van kompleksiteit die disintegrasie van tradisionele leerstellings se aansprake, wat te lank as vanselfsprekend aanvaar was, ontbloot (merkbaar reduksionistiese modernisme). In teenstelling met reduksionistiese strategieë wat staat maak op metodes van analise en isolasie, fokus die studie van komplekse verskynsels op die dinamiese verhoudings en organisasie van sisteme en hul omgewings. Alhoewel die studie van kompleksiteit ’n byna alledaagse verskynsel geword het, bestaan daar geen bindende definisie wat ’n enkele ‘Teorie van Kompleksiteit’ daarstel nie. Daar word spesifiek op hierdie probleem gefokus in terme van hoe die wetenskaplike studie van kompleksiteit histories ontwikkel het. Dit word aangevoer dat dit sinvoller is om eerder tussen ‘beperkte’ en ‘algemene’ teorieë van kompleksiteit te onderskei as om ’n oorkoepelende teorie te ontwikkel. Heelwat probleme duik op in die poging om komplekse verskynsels konseptueel en empiries te bestudeer. Alhoewel die studie van komplekse verskynsels ’n alternatiewe posisie tot reduksionistiese benaderings daarstel, kan kennis van kompleksiteit in beginsel slegs ’n reduksie daarvan wees. As gevolg hiervan word die studie van komplekse verskynsels ten beste as ’n post-reduksionistiese poging beskryf wat noodwendig ’n kritiese posisie impliseer. Die kompleksiteitsbenadering stem in die algemeen met post-strukturele filosofiese benaderings, en spesifiek met dekonstruksie ooreen. Hierdie ooreenstemming is egter nie onproblematies nie, aangesien post-strukutrele kritiese posisies deur probleme van legitimasie gekenmerk word. Lojaliteit aan post-metafisiese ideale het tot gevolg dat daar geen objektiewe, grondige vertrekpunt bestaan vanwaar normatiewe begrondings geregverdig kan word nie. ’n Dekonstruktiewe lees van Kant se idee van die begrip ‘kritiek’ openbaar dat daar ’n ‘double movement’ aan die werk is wat die konsep ‘kritiek’ kan verruim ten einde dit te verander om ‘critique as stricture’ te beteken. Die werking van différance is altyd betrokke tydens kritiese analise waardeur die beperkinge van ons singewende strategieë blootgestel word. Hierdie her-definiëring van kritiek as ‘critique as stricture’ stel ons in staat om nuwe lewe in die kritiese projek te blaas deurdat legitimiteit gevind word in die spanning van die kragveld wat geskep word tussen antagonistiese posisies. ’n Voorlopige grondslag word in die naam van die beperkings van ons denkstrategië gevestig. ‘Kompleksiteitsdenke’ (‘complex thinking’) stel ’n denkstrategie daar wat tred hou met die dinamiese beweging wat in ‘critique as stricture’ teenwoordig is. ‘Kompleksiteitsdenke’ word aan die hand van Derrida en Morin se interpretasie van Bataille se onderskeid tussen die beperkte en algemene ekonomie gedoen ten einde te demonstreer dat ‘kompleksiteitsdenke’ binne die beweging van die algemene ekonomie val. Die studie word afgesluit met die argument dat, ingelig deur ‘critique as stricture’, die kompleksiteitsbenadering tot die begrip ‘kritiese kompleksiteit’ ontwikkel soos voorgestel deur Cilliers. Kritiese kompleksiteit word deur ’n normatiewe impuls gekenmerk wat in sigself weer deur drie noodsaaklike eienskappe uitgeken kan word: 1) die Voorlopige Imperatief, 2) die Kritiese Refleksiewe Imperatief en 3) die Wêreld-ontsluitende Imperatief. Al drie hierdie imperatiewe staan onder die invloed van die algemene ekonomie wat ons toelaat om kritiese analise te begrond in die spanning wat onstaan wanneer antagonistiese konsepte saam gedink word sonder dat hulle tot mekaar gereduseer word.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Calvin Theological Seminary, 1995. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 189-200).

Thesis (MA)--University of Stellenbosch, 2005. / Bibliography. Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (MA)--University of Stellenbosch, 2004. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The question of what it means to say one knows something, or has knowledge of something, triggered an epistemological study after the nature of knowledge and its acquisition. There are many different ways in which one can go about acquiring knowledge, manydifferent frameworks that one can use to search after truth. Because most real systems about which one could desire knowledge (organic, social, economic etc.) are non-linear, an understanding of non-linear systems is important for the process of acquiring knowledge. Knowledge exhibits the characteristics of a dynamic, adaptive system, and as such could be approached via a dynamic theory of adaptive systems. Therefore, chaos theory and complexity theory are two theoretical (non-linear) frameworks that can facilitate the knowledge acquisition process. As a modernist instrument for acquiring knowledge, chaos theory provides one with deterministic rules that make mathematical understanding of non-linear phenomenaa bit easier, but it is limited in that it can only provide one with certain knowledge up until the (system's) next bifurcation (i.e. when chaos sets in). After this, it is near impossible to predict what a chaotic system will do. Complexity theory, as a postmodern tool for knowledge acquisition, gives one insight into the dynamic, self-organising nature of the non-linear systems around one. By analysing the global stability complex systems produce during punctuated equilibrium, one can learn much about how these systems adapt, evolve and survive. Complexity and chaos, therefore, together can provide one with a useful framework for understanding the nature and workings of non-linear systems. However, it should be remembered that every observer of knowledge does so out of his/her own personal framework of beliefs, circumstances and history, and that knowledge therefore can never be 100 percent objective. Knowledge and truth can never be entirely relative either, however, for this would mean that all knowledge (and thereby all opposing claims and statements) is equally correct or true. This is clearly not possible. What is possible, though, is the fulfilling and successful pursuit of knowledge for the sake of the journey of learning and understandi ng. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die vraag na wat dit eintlik beteken om te sê mens weet iets, of dra kennis van iets, het na 'n epistemologiese soeke na die wese van kennis en die verwerwing daarvan toe gelei. Daar is baie maniere waarop mens kennis kan verwerf, baie verskillende raamwerke wat mens kan gebruik om te soek na waarheid. Omdat die meeste wesenlike stelsels waarvan mens kennis sou wou verkry (organies, sosiaal, ekonomies ens.) nie-lineêr is, is 'n verstaan van nie-lineêre stelsels belangrik vir die kennisverwerwingsproses. Kennis vertoon die eienskappe van I n dinamiese, aanpassende stelsel, en kan dus via 'n dinamiese teorie van aanpassendestelsels benader word. Daarom is chaosteorie en kompleksiteitsteorie twee teoretiese (nie-lineêre) raamwerke wat die proses van kennisverwerwing kan vergemaklik. As I n modernistiese instrument vir kennisverwerwing, verskaf chaosteorie deterministiese reëls wat die wiskundige verstaan van nie-lineêre verskynsels bietjie vergemaklik, maar dit is beperk deurdat dit net sekere kennis tot op die (stelsel se) volgende splitsing (d.w.s. waar chaos begin) verskaf. Hierna, word dit naasonmoontlik om te voorspel wat I n chaotiese stelsel gaandoen. Kompleksiteitsteorie, as I n postmodernistiese gereedskap vir kennisverwerwing, gee mens insig in die dinamiese, selforganiserende aard van die nie-lineêre stelsels om mens. Deur die globale stabiliteit wat komplekse stelsels gedurende onderbreekte ewewig ("punctuated equi/ibrium"}toon te analiseer, kan mens baie leer van hoe hierdie stelsels aanpas, ontwikkel en oorleef. Kompleksiteit en chaos, saam, kan mens dus van a nuttige raamwerk vir die verstaan van die wese en werkinge van nie-lineêre stelsels, voorsien. Daar moet egter onthou word dat elke waarnemer van kennis dit doen uit sy/haar persoonlike raamwerk van oortuiginge, omstandighede en geskiedenis, en dat kennis dus nooit 100 persent objektief kan wees nie. Kennis en waarheid kan egter ook nooit heeltemaal relatief wees nie, want dit sou beteken dat alle kennis (en hiermee ook alle teenstrydige aansprake en stellings) gelyk korrek of waar is. Hierdie is duidelik onmoontlik. Wat wel moontlik is, is die vervullende en suksesvolle strewe na kennis ter wille van die reis van leer en verstaan.

Contemporary views on the aesthetics of nature fall into two opposing schools of thought; the cognitive school where philosophers such as Allen Carlson believe that science can explain everything about the aesthetics of nature, and the non-cognitive where, for example, Arnold Berleant maintains that science is a sufficient though not a necessary condition for the aesthetic appreciation of nature. Berleant and others of his kind contend that an engaged multi-sensuous relationship with nature will manifest the required experience. Empathy with nature, specifically primal empathy is the focus of this research, but empathy can only be experienced from a phenomenological perspective. I have walked over two hundred miles in over 70 Florida state parks, including an autumn trip to Vermont and back. During this journey I came to experience a personal connection (empathy) with nature that I now believe is grounded in holism and a methodology of the sublime leading to the beautiful. The main conclusions derived from this research are: self-realized individuals will experience the connection I speak of more quickly than those who are not, and the genius nature artist through a creative act grounded in primal empathy can reveal the Ideas or Forms of nature to those who would otherwise never experience them. This research also concludes that empathy with nature, specifically primal empathy, is a new element that can reduce the cleft and help unify the two opposing views. / by Robert L.J. Axberg. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2011. / Includes bibliography. / Electronic reproduction. Boca Raton, Fla., 2011. Mode of access: World Wide Web.

Abstract not available

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at Austin, 2007. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--UCLA, 2008. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 473-520).