Loet wrote: At the level of observers, indeed, a hierarchy may be involved for the change of focus (although this is empirical and not necessarily the case). The communication, however, as a system different from the communicators may contain mechanisms such as "translation" which make it
Dear Emanuel, nice to hear such a response. I am curious to know your opinion and those of the FIS colleagues about the difference between "with" and "within". The strict lines of separation typical for reductionist science should be better avoided. In many cases, I have the feeling that it is
Dear FISers, What if we take the observer not as an entity of whatever kind (a unity or identity), but as a distinction (a difference) that when being laid to the foreground becomes a difference that makes a difference (that is, it becomes informative -but this information is locally or
Dear Xueshan Yan, May I suggest moving from a set-theoretical model to a model of two (or more) helices. The one dimension may be the independent and the other the dependent variable at different moments of time. One can research this empirically; for example, in bodies of texts. In my own
Dear Dai, Søren, Karl, Sung, Syed, Stan, Terry, and Loet, I am sorry to reply you late, but I have thoroughly read every post about the paradox and they have brought me many inspirations, thank you. Now I offer my responses as follows: Dai, metaphor research is an ancient topic in linguistics,
Dear Pedro and All, If I go back to Pedro's original note, I see a further aspect which might be worked into its discussion. There are no ideal meta-observers; we are all, to a certain extent, both meta-observers of the discussion and participants in it. This is not a simple vertical hierarchy.
Dear all, My name - Emanuel - in a literal translation means "God with us". Despite of that, for the purpose of our current discussion, I would like to mention: The external observer, which provide us with the needed semantic information used (as a reference) for physical information