Dear Christophe,
I like your approach. Here is something even simpler: the system is the meaning
of the information. System and meaning are not totally separable. One's
perspective focuses on one or the other, as the case may be.
Best wishes,
Joseph
- Original Message -
From:
Yes Joseph, you are right.
As the satisfaction of the constraint is mandatory for the system to maintain
its nature, system and constraint are indeed tightly linked.
The “stay alive” constraint came up on earth with the first organisms that had
to maintain a local far from equilibrium status.
Dear Christophe
May I point out then that meaning of information is not information, but
meaning and therefore not comprehensible in information theory or science?
Venlig hilsen/best wishes
Søren Brier
Professor of semiotics at Department of International Studies of Culture and
Communication,
Dear Stan
In general I can accept the drift of most of your answers, but I think you
overlook one important process in the living systems, they experience the
universe and the more they develop the more refined their experience becomes.
Then they start to talk about them, later to write tem
I am a little troubled by this account of the term meaning. As
described the distinction is not necessary and the concept of
constraint seems arbitrary. How are we to identify these
constraints? What is the measure of meaning?
As I understand it Christophe proposes that the measure of
Giddens' structuration, Luhmann's self-organization,
and the operationalization of the dynamics of meaning
Abstract:
Luhmann's social systems theory and Giddens' structuration theory of action
share an emphasis on reflexivity, but focus on meaning along a divide
between inter-human
