Dear FIS colleagues,

Many thanks for the comments exchanged.
Welcome to Roly, the first party of the Xian's conference publishing in the 
list (I mean concerning the invited speakers, as Bi-Lin who also posted 
recently was a Xian participant too). I agree with Roli's interpretation and 
Joseph's points, and also with the direction started by John. It is one of the 
few times we are producing interesting ideas on social information 
infrastructures. Perhaps at the time being the "received wisdom" on 
communication & social information is not working terribly well.  For instance, 
Jakobson six communication functions could be perfectly collapsed into three, 
or expanded into nine... I have found a similar "relativity" in the not so many 
approaches to cellular / biological communication.
One of the essential points to reconsider is, in my opinion, the lack of 
connection between communication and life itself. Without entering 
self-production of the living there can be no sense, no meaning. The notion of 
information flow (rather than the "signal") has helped me to cohere the 
cellular intertwining scheme. But, little problem, how can the gap to the human 
dimension be crossed? Essentially human communication is not logical, but 
bio-logical... amorphously structured around the advancement of one's life, and 
that includes masterminding well organized motor apparatuses, as those involved 
in language production and language interpretation ("cerebellar computation"). 
Logics is a byproduct of this motor/perceptual system underlying our concepts 
and the interlinking of our exchnges, which becomes mastermined by the fitness 
demands within social groups --responding to Bi-Lin's off line comments too. 
Actually most of our social exchanges are supradetermined by status, 
self-image, ambitions, affinity, collective identities, deception, 
self-deception, attraction, etc. Rather than noise, it is life itself!
Haven't we a lot of work to be done in these essential matters?

best ---Pedro

De: Joseph Brenner []
Enviado el: jueves, 21 de noviembre de 2013 20:22
Asunto: Re: [Fis] social flow

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 
 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<tel:%2B34%20976%2071%203526> (& 6818)<>

fis mailing list<>


fis mailing list
fis mailing list

Reply via email to