Dear Roly, Dear Pedro,

Thank you for taking this thread in a for me very interesting direction. As you 
know, interesting means what I find my logical system can confirm, improve, 
validate, etc. The two notes share one feature that one might criticize, 
namely, that they deal essentially with present, conscious material, whereas 
"information flow" almost  by defintion seems to involve components that are 
absent, potential, unconscious, etc.

Similarly, the application of the Square of Opposition in Roly's reference 
would at first sight appear to be explanatory, but on closer inspection, I find 
everything reduced back to binary logic, arrows in a box. What has to be added, 
pace Jakobson, is some notion of the actual dynamics of what Roly calls "a 
mutual relateable framework". And let's not be too greedy: let's get the 
pairwise interactions right and then see where we can go with more complex ones.



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Roly Belfer 
  To: Pedro C. Marijuan 
  Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:44 PM
  Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow

  Dear Pedro

  Thank you! there is some sort of synchronicity here: I was just recently 
thinking about Roman Jakobson and his 6 levels of semiotic analysis. Especially 
the phatic expression, as some kind of white noise that is necessary for the 
interpersonal informational "handshake". That is, an infosphere - be it organic 
or more like artificial info networks - would need to have actants operate in a 
mutually relateable framework (even if it is only pairwise).

  The meaningless/senseless datum is important for establishing the lines of 
communication, and perhaps some emergent properties (such as intimacy, 
grouping, pre-communicative  acceptance). 
  Do you know of any quantified work re Jakobson? (I keep this around for 
different purposes) 


  On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan 
<> wrote:

    Dear FIS colleagues,

    Just a wandering thought, in part motivated by the highly formal
    contents of the other discussion track. What are the major contents,
    topics, and styles in our social, spontaneous exchanges? Seemingly the
    response is that most of those exchanges are just casual, irrelevant,
    performed for their own sake. There are scholarly references about
    that---though our own perusal of social life may quite agree. The
    information flow, the circulation of social information, becomes the
    message itself (echoing McLuhan), amorphously gluing the different
    networks of the social structure... Flowing naturally in spontaneous
    exchanges and also fabricated and recirculated by the media. Our
    talkative species needs the daily dose --otherwise mental health resents
    quite easily.
    I am these days reading Robert Trivers (2011) on self-deception and how
    the info flow we are conscious of becomes a highly self-centered
    concoction for for our own social self-promotion. I think it partially
    dovetails with the above: "we are the content."

    best ---Pedro

    Pedro C. Marijuán
    Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
    Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
    Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
    Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
    50009 Zaragoza, Spain
    Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)

    fis mailing list


  fis mailing list
fis mailing list

Reply via email to