Dear FIS colleagues,
I have some differences about the epistemic stance recently discussed by
Karl, Loet (and in part, Joseph, but he looks more as trying to step on
"the reality", whatever it is). Basically, their informational subject
looks like the abstract, disembodied, non-situated, classical observer,
equipped in a Cartesian austerity --and outside, just the Order or maybe
the Disorder.
My contention is that the epistemology of information science has to
give room for non-human "observers", I mean, there is cognition and
informational processes (forms of knowledge and intelligence included)
in bacteria, living cells in general, non human nervous systems, and in
a number of social constructions and institutions ("accounting"
processes, specifically the sciences), even at the level of global human
society we are living now in an epoch of planetary observation and
actuation (eg, climate change) --not to speak only on politics and
economics. The micro-macro info flows and knowledge circulation are
fascinating epistemic problems of our time, when collectively considered.
I have argued in previous messages that a new info "rhetorics" looks
necessary, so to prepare the room for a new info epistemology. The
problem of the "agent(s)" and the "world(s)", the abstract observer(s)
and the real one(s), the necessary disciplinary involvement
(particularly of the neurosciences, the "action" strike...) all of this
looks very difficult to be handled directly. New way of thinking needed.
best wishes
---Pedro
PS. NEXT WEEK THE NEW DISCUSSION SESSION BY MARK BURGING ON INFO THEORY
WILL BE ANNOUNCED.
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
