Dear FISers,

Although I share Terry's concern, I do not think that expostulating one's general framework is going to facilitate the discussions. Perhaps oposite, as it will introduce a trend towards generalization that fortifies the perspectival differences and makes the rhetorics less adjusted to the concrete. The problem basically resides in the persistent immaturity of the "information synthesis" so to speak. Defenders of each approach advocate a different "observer", charged in each case with their favorite conceptualizations. Taking into account the apparent multitude of dimensions of information, and its almost unfathomable reach, a "battery" of those observers has to be in place. And an agile switching among the observers has to be established. A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious displacements of the focus... helas, this means a meta-observer or an
But what sort of reference may such a metaobserver arbitrate? There is no conceivable book of rules about the switching between heterogeneous disciplinary bodies. I see only one way, imitating the central goal of nervous systems: the metaobserver should finally care about our collective social life. It was Whitehead, as far as I remember, who put it: "to live, to live better." In each level of organization it is the life cycle of the concerned entities and the aggregates built upon them what matters. Information is not only about logic-formal aspects. It is the bread and butter of complexity, that which allows contemporary social life.
So, in the coming session about "dataism" we can also explore these themes.


Fis mailing list

Reply via email to