Dear Roly, Dear Pedro,
Thank you for taking this thread in a for me very interesting direction. As you
know, interesting means what I find my logical system can confirm, improve,
validate, etc. The two notes share one feature that one might criticize,
namely, that they deal essentially with present, conscious material, whereas
"information flow" almost by defintion seems to involve components that are
absent, potential, unconscious, etc.
Similarly, the application of the Square of Opposition in Roly's reference
would at first sight appear to be explanatory, but on closer inspection, I find
everything reduced back to binary logic, arrows in a box. What has to be added,
pace Jakobson, is some notion of the actual dynamics of what Roly calls "a
mutual relateable framework". And let's not be too greedy: let's get the
pairwise interactions right and then see where we can go with more complex ones.
Cheers,
Joseph
----- Original Message -----
From: Roly Belfer
To: Pedro C. Marijuan
Cc: fis@listas.unizar.es
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Fis] social flow
Dear Pedro
Thank you! there is some sort of synchronicity here: I was just recently
thinking about Roman Jakobson and his 6 levels of semiotic analysis. Especially
the phatic expression, as some kind of white noise that is necessary for the
interpersonal informational "handshake". That is, an infosphere - be it organic
or more like artificial info networks - would need to have actants operate in a
mutually relateable framework (even if it is only pairwise).
The meaningless/senseless datum is important for establishing the lines of
communication, and perhaps some emergent properties (such as intimacy,
grouping, pre-communicative acceptance).
Do you know of any quantified work re Jakobson? (I keep this around for
different purposes)
Best
Roly
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan
<pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es> wrote:
Dear FIS colleagues,
Just a wandering thought, in part motivated by the highly formal
contents of the other discussion track. What are the major contents,
topics, and styles in our social, spontaneous exchanges? Seemingly the
response is that most of those exchanges are just casual, irrelevant,
performed for their own sake. There are scholarly references about
that---though our own perusal of social life may quite agree. The
information flow, the circulation of social information, becomes the
message itself (echoing McLuhan), amorphously gluing the different
networks of the social structure... Flowing naturally in spontaneous
exchanges and also fabricated and recirculated by the media. Our
talkative species needs the daily dose --otherwise mental health resents
quite easily.
I am these days reading Robert Trivers (2011) on self-deception and how
the info flow we are conscious of becomes a highly self-centered
concoction for for our own social self-promotion. I think it partially
dovetails with the above: "we are the content."
best ---Pedro
--
-------------------------------------------------
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
