Dear colleagues, 


It seems to me that one can use models from biology to study inter-human
communication; but inter-human communication is not alive. The dynamics are
non-linear, but probably very different from the dynamics among molecules. 


For example, counterfactual orders can be shaped culturally among us such as
the rule of law. This cannot be reduced to biological principles (such as
survival of the fittest). The dynamics of expectations are very different
from that of historical events.


The psychological may be mediating reflexively between the cultural and the
biological, with a dynamics of itself. Without the individual reflections on
perceptions, the social distribution of expectations would not be
reproduced. However, one cannot reduce these structural couplings to
dependency relations, in my opinion. 






Niklas Luhmann <> ’s Magnificent
Contribution to the Sociological Tradition: The Emergence of the
Knowledge-Based Economy as an Order of Expectations, in: Nachtflug der Eule:
150 Stimmen zum Werk von Niklas Luhmann. Gedenkbuch zum 15. Todestag von
Niklas Luhmann (8. Dezember 1927 Lüneburg - 6. November 1998 Oerlinghausen),
Magdalena Tzaneva (Ed.). Berlin: LiDi Europe Verlagshaus, 2013; .



From: [] On
Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2013 9:53 PM
To: Joseph Brenner; Roly Belfer
Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow


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 this
mensions_english.pdf>  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