Dear Joe,
However, I rather tend to agree with you that Loet's, Rosen's and Dubois'
models of communication, anticipation, etc. are somewhat too abstract. The
models, as I think Loet may agree, are created for analysis, and do not define
the physical, dynamic relation between the models,
Dear FIS colleagues,
I have some differences about the epistemic stance recently discussed by
Karl, Loet (and in part, Joseph, but he looks more as trying to step on
the reality, whatever it is). Basically, their informational subject
looks like the abstract, disembodied, non-situated,
:29 AM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es
Subject: Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering
Principles
Dear FIS colleagues,
I have some differences about the epistemic stance recently discussed by
Karl, Loet (and in part, Joseph, but he looks more as trying to step on the
reality
: 01.04.2011 12:14
An: 'Pedro C. Marijuan'pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es, fis@listas.unizar.es
Betreff: Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering
Principles
Dear Pedro,
I understand that you have some problems with my epistemic stance. Let me
try to clarify.
Let me go back
part de* joe.bren...@bluewin.ch
*Envoyé :* vendredi 1 avril 2011 19:38
*À :* l...@leydesdorff.net; 'Pedro C. Marijuan'; fis@listas.unizar.es
*Objet :* Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering
Principles
Dear Pedro,
I do not quite recognize myself in the statement
C. Marijuan';
fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es
Objet : Re: [Fis] Discussion colophon--James Hannam. Orders and Ordering
Principles
Dear Pedro,
I do not quite recognize myself in the statement:
Basically, their informational subject looks like the abstract, disembodied,
non
Dear Karl, Dear Loet,
Thank you both for your postings and the perspectives they provide. They leave
me with just two questions, and I am glad Karl does not want to close the
discussion so that I may ask for your and other views on them.
1. Does Loet's reply to Karl regarding frameworks for
Dear Joe and colleagues,
1. Does Loet's reply to Karl regarding frameworks for observation of actual
states vs. frameworks for expectations imply that such frameworks are
completely mutually exclusive?
Of course, not: the expectations are informed by previous observations and
further
Dear All,
the contrasting views between Loet’s understanding of order as an
implication of information and of the alternative which deducts information
from order are in no real opposition. Rather they reflect differing
perspectives, like the tradition of e.g. measuring a room from a middle
