RE: Loel Leydesdorf's Comment

The level of abstraction of Husserl?s epoche and Shannon?s concept of yet
meaningless information can be made compatible. Luhmann made the connection
by relating communication to (Husserl?s) intersubjectivity.

I believe that when you see my contribution to this whole discussion (3rd
in line after Maxine) you will find that it offers the possibility of an
improved method of sharing meaning - which has not yet been explicitly
developed.

The model of complexity / criticality based information that I propose is a
basis for cognition of gestalts / 'forms' based on Thom's catastrophe
theory. As I show, this forms a model for how different minds may
communicate such gestalts directly, so that 'meanings' become simple to
share, and no secondary considerations concerning Shannon information are
needed.

The new picture places Shannon / Negentropy information in the external
world, while minds use a new, complexity-based, 'Experience Information'
which offers them means of direct communication, as in e.g. the 'Bush
Telegraph' of Lawrence Van Der Post's descriptions of the life of Bushmen
of the Kalahari. These and many other similar instances are generally held
in doubt by the academic community for want of a plausible model,. But the
new picture provides such a picture. (I hope that this does not sound too
alarming!)

On 2 March 2016 at 12:52, <fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es> wrote:

> Send Fis mailing list submissions to
>         fis@listas.unizar.es
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         fis-requ...@listas.unizar.es
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         fis-ow...@listas.unizar.es
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Fis digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: _ Response to several commentators: (Loet Leydesdorff)
>    2. (no subject) (Marcus Abundis)
>    3. _ Response to several commentators: (Marcus Abundis)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 12:48:40 +0100
> From: "Loet Leydesdorff" <l...@leydesdorff.net>
> To: "'Maxine Sheets-Johnstone'" <m...@uoregon.edu>, "'FIS Webinar'"
>         <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Subject: Re: [Fis] _ Response to several commentators:
> Message-ID: <009901d173b0$4cebdfa0$e6c39ee0$@leydesdorff.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
> Dear Maxine:
>
>
>
> Thank you for these extensive and interesting contributions and answers.
>
>
>
> Husserl?s concern was precisely with how the world, the world that
> definitively includes Others, thus bodies and we-relationships, is
> constituted, thus how we come to the concepts, judgements, and meanings we
> do. His habit of beginning over and over from the beginning testifies to a
> relentless spirit of investigation (?)
>
>
>
> The crux remains, in my opinion, that only an ?intersubjective
> phenomenology, which is founded on that discipline? (Meditations, p. 155)
> can apprehend this ?total science?.
>
>
>
> I come to Husserl from the communication angle: this intersubjectivity can
> nowadays be analyzed as communication (of information and meaning). The
> level of abstraction of Husserl?s epoche and Shannon?s concept of yet
> meaningless information can be made compatible. Luhmann made the connection
> by relating communication to (Husserl?s) intersubjectivity.
>
>
>
> In other words, intersubjectivity can be operationalized as inter-human
> communication. Inter-human communication adds the sharing and processing of
> meaning to the communication of (Shannon-type) information. (The latter
> relation was not specified by Luhmann who used a less abstract definition
> of information as a priori meaningful; cf. Bateson.)
>
>
>
> I understand that this is very sketchy. I elaborated the model in a paper
> < http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.05251 > which is currently under submission.
> The abstract reads as follows:
>
>
>
> Following a suggestion of Warren Weaver, we extend the Shannon model of
> communication piecemeal into a complex systems model in which communication
> is differentiated both vertically and horizontally. This model enables us
> to bridge the divide between Niklas Luhmann's theory of the
> self-organization of meaning in communications and empirical research using
> information theory. First, we distinguish between communication relations
> and correlations among patterns of relations. The correlations span a
> vector space in which relations are positioned and can be provided with
> meaning. Second, positions provide reflexive perspectives. Whereas the
> different meanings are integrated locally, each instantiation opens global
> perspectives--"horizons of meaning"--along eigenvectors of the
> communication matrix. These next-order codifications of meaning can be
> expected to generate redundancies when interacting in instantiations.
> Increases in redundancy indicate new options and can be measured !
>  as local reduction of prevailing uncertainty (in bits). The systemic
> generation of new options can be considered as a hallmark of the
> knowledge-based economy.
>
>
>
> The reference to ?horizons of meaning? makes Husserl relevant. For
> example, the bodily encounter with the Other can now be considered as
> specifically coded communication, when interhuman. The difference with
> Husserl is that the transcendental becomes thus constructed (by inte-human
> communication). The loss of a transcendental given seems a gain to me.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Loet
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160301/bf545358/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 08:19:58 +0100
> From: Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com>
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: [Fis] (no subject)
> Message-ID:
>         <
> cacjqm9zwvhmhzmkg4nb7pgpuqcngjrawhmxlmavtyl15x9c...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Maxine,
>
>     Thank you very much for your thoughtful response!
> (and Mark ? thanks for another excellent post!)
>
> I now feel I have a better sense of what is being considered, although I
> confess I still struggle a bit with the language. You raise several points
> . . .
>
> > Bracketing is only the beginning! Making the familiar strange is only he
> first step! <
> Yes, this makes perfect sense and (I think) falls in line with the *a
> priori* notion that Loet alludes to in his post. I would term this as "a
> beginners mind" needed to discern a pure (uncolored) and detailed view of
> the topic. Further, an *a prior* vista seems critical to developing an
> essential three-fold model pointed to by Mark.
>
> > In short, in turning ?to the things themselves,? we distinguish noesis
> and noema: consciousness and the object as meant. <
> This of course echoes "das ding an sich" and noumena . . . but then this is
> not what you mean, no? This leaves me wondering: exactly "how far does the
> penny fall" in the phenomenological approach you advocate?
>
> > Each of these aspects of [Husserlian] meaning warrants study. <
> The whole matter of "meaning" seems to be a recurrently open, HOT and
> unresolved matter within this group. Loet's post points to a social aspect,
> others (Collier?) will point to a material aspect, and I stand somewhere
> in-between. In any case, all can convey meaning but of quite different
> types. Do you have a specific view you are advocating here, beyond your
> general allusion to Husserlian meaning?
>
> > What is wanted in a phenomenological analysis of information . . .
> full-blown uncovering of the nature . . .<
> As Mark's post suggests, there are many in this group likely to agree with
> this, I certainly do! Still, it feels like you are more advocating for a
> particular approach (phenomenological) rather than presenting a actual
> phenomenological analysis. I apologize if I sound a bit dense here, but I
> wish to be clear and make sure I do not overlook something.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts!
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160302/72dffdc7/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 08:22:29 +0100
> From: Marcus Abundis <55m...@gmail.com>
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: [Fis] _ Response to several commentators:
> Message-ID:
>         <
> cacjqm9waamq5lbptsedvvmrmtwakfgfuox-u_xhd3j8yroo...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Maxine,
>
>     Thank you very much for your thoughtful response!
> (and Mark ? thanks for another excellent post!)
>
> I now feel I have a better sense of what is being considered, although I
> confess I still struggle a bit with the language. You raise several points
> . . .
>
> > Bracketing is only the beginning! Making the familiar strange is only he
> first step! <
> Yes, this makes perfect sense and (I think) falls in line with the *a
> priori* notion that Loet alludes to in his post. I would term this as "a
> beginners mind" needed to discern a pure (uncolored) and detailed view of
> the topic. Further, an *a prior* vista seems critical to developing an
> essential three-fold model pointed to by Mark.
>
> > In short, in turning ?to the things themselves,? we distinguish noesis
> and noema: consciousness and the object as meant. <
> This of course echoes "das ding an sich" and noumena . . . but then this is
> not what you mean, no? This leaves me wondering: exactly "how far does the
> penny fall" in the phenomenological approach you advocate?
>
> > Each of these aspects of [Husserlian] meaning warrants study. <
> The whole matter of "meaning" seems to be a recurrently open, HOT and
> unresolved matter within this group. Loet's post points to a social aspect,
> others (Collier?) will point to a material aspect, and I stand somewhere
> in-between. In any case, all can convey meaning but of quite different
> types. Do you have a specific view you are advocating here, beyond your
> general allusion to Husserlian meaning?
>
> > What is wanted in a phenomenological analysis of information . . .
> full-blown uncovering of the nature . . .<
> As Mark's post suggests, there are many in this group likely to agree with
> this, I certainly do! Still, it feels like you are more advocating for a
> particular approach (phenomenological) rather than presenting a actual
> phenomenological analysis. I apologize if I sound a bit dense here, but I
> wish to be clear and make sure I do not overlook something.
>
> Thanks for your thoughts!
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20160302/3dd1506a/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Fis Digest, Vol 24, Issue 2
> **********************************
>



-- 
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle
Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India
Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195
Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789
____________________________________________________________

2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics
and Phenomenological Philosophy
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to