Yes John, 
there can be conflicts between levels in the organization of
life. 
Ex: the “stay alive” constraint applies to individual and to species, and there 
can be
some conflicts: 
The satisfaction of
individual constraints can become incompatible with the satisfaction of species
constraints. For an ant colony to cross water, several ants may sacrifice
themselves and get drowned to allow the build up of a bridge usable for the ant
colony. The species constraints are here stronger than the individual ones.

And
true also that human mind can create ends that are in conflict with human
life. I tend to believe that if Freud could have developed his concepts on life
& death drives a bit further he would have met the possibility of a dual rooting
in anxiety limitation.

Best 

Christophe 

Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:46:27 +0200
To: christophe.men...@hotmail.fr; pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es; 
fis@listas.unizar.es
From: colli...@ukzn.ac.za
Subject: Re: [Fis] FW:  social flow



Folks,


On issue that I don't think Christophe deals with adequately in his
otherwise excellent post is that the organization of life is
hierarchical, and can therefore lead to conflicts between levels. For
example, reproduction and heredity are important to life, so linage
extinction resistance is also important. This can lead to conflicts
between traits that are good for resisting death in organisms but not in
the lineage, and vice versa. Also, sometimes groups are subject to
selection, and resistance to group extinction becomes a factor
independent of the resistance to death of individual organisms. This can
also lead to conflicts between levels.


I might as well add that human mind can create ends that are in conflict
with human life (it is another level, but not part of some easy hierarchy
that might combine features I mentioned above).


Best,

John


At 01:17 AM 11/24/2013, Christophe wrote:

Dear Pedro, 

The framework you present is interesting and deserves some comments.

You write: “Without entering self-production of the living there can be
no sense, no meaning”. I agree. You positions meaning generation with the
coming up of life in evolution, assuming there is no meaning generation
in the world of inert matter. But what is life? The best definition I
know: “the sum of the functions by which death is resisted” [Bichat]. So
life is organized around maintaining its nature, around satisfying a
“stay alive” constraint (not that circular if you position the constraint
as local vs ubiquist laws). But we should keep in mind that the nature of
life is a mystery for today science and philosophy.

Then come humans: “But, little problem, how can the gap to the human
dimension be crossed?" Humans are indeed living entities, but with
self-consciousness and free-will in addition. And these performances also
are mysteries for today science & philosophy. Also comes in language
” amorphously structured around the advancement of one's life”.
And,  key point: ”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!” 

The only point I would disagree with you is the last part of the
sentence, as human behavior is much more than life itself. The
constraints that humans have to satisfy contain some specificities like
valorize ego and limit anxiety. The field of human constraints is not
that well understood. Probably because it is closely linked to these
mysterious human specificities. 

So we are looking at a difficult subject: understand information flow
within entities that we do not understand. 

The former can indeed feed the latter but I feel that an evolutionary
thread should be explicitly considered in order to make available a
background that we understand. 

(More on this in

http://philpapers.org/archive/MENCOI ). 

Best

Christophe


From: pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es

To: joe.bren...@bluewin.ch; avi...@gmail.com

Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 20:52:58 +0000

CC: fis@listas.unizar.es

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
[joe.bren...@bluewin.ch]

Enviado el: jueves, 21 de noviembre de 2013 20:22

Para: Roly Belfer; PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ

Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es

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.

 

Cheers,

 

Joseph

 

 

 



----- Original Message ----- 


From: Roly Belfer 


To: Pedro C.
Marijuan 


Cc:
fis@listas.unizar.es 


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) 



Best


Roly





On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan
<
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> 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)



pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es




http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/


-------------------------------------------------



_______________________________________________


fis mailing list


fis@listas.unizar.es




https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis










_______________________________________________


fis mailing list


fis@listas.unizar.es




https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis





_______________________________________________ fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es

https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis







Professor John
Collier                                    
colli...@ukzn.ac.za

Philosophy and Ethics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041 South
Africa

T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292       F:
+27 (31) 260 3031


Http://web.ncf.ca/collier

                                                                                
  
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to