[Fis] Mark Johnson. Less is more
joe.brenner at bluewin.ch
Thu Oct 15 12:04:34 CEST 2015
I find much novelty in your interesting approach as I read your note of
October 1 and this one. This novelty should not be lost by imposing standard
patterns of interpretation on it. If we really believe "it's time we confess
in science just how little we know about language, that we explore
language's mysteries", we might do well to consider the idea of Lao Tzu
(Wang. 2013. /The Logic of Tao Philosophy/ that the obscurity, contradiction
and ambiguity in linguistic description is not a 'mystery' but an indication
of the proper way to understand the complex logical nature of reality.
Any proper theory of information should be capable of giving
non-metaphorical meaning to the phrase, applicable to Chinese art and used
in poetry by Browning and architecture by van der Rohe that "less is more".
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonmwj1 en gmail.com>
To: "fis" <fis en listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Fis] Shannon-Weavers' Levels A, B, C.
> Maybe I've missed something, but the subsumption I mentioned
> (referring to Bateson) was not between A, B and C: these are
> co-existent interacting dynamics as I understand them, and certainly a
> very rigorous and powerful generative model.
> I was worrying about subsumption of Bateson's "imagination" into
> "rigour".... Loet's model does have 'imagination' in it in the
> generation of redundancies. But does it include the human imagination
> capable of conceiving a model of itself?
> I wonder if a possible answer to the question lies in Loet's work.
> Human embodiment is a constraint which an abstract rigorous model can
> never have. Within dynamics of mutual redundancy, won't the
> complexities of mutual redundancies of embodied existence will always
> outweigh the mutual redundancies that can be abstractly modelled?
> best wishes,
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Robert E. Ulanowicz <ulan en umces.edu>
>>> On 2015-10-14, at 12:38 PM, Marcus Abundis wrote:
>>>> RE Mark Johnson's post of Thu Oct 1 09:47:13 on Bateson and imagination
>> Two quick remarks:
>> 1. It's not at all clear to me that C is subsumptive of B.
>> 2. I would lobby for Shannon/Bayesian relationships as an intermediary
>> between A. and B (i.e., preliminary to "meaning").
>> Cheers to all,
>> Bob U.
>>>> . . .
>>>> – Me Too!
>>>> RE Loet & Stan's postings beginning Thu Oct 1 21:19:50 . . .
>>>> > I suggest to distinguish between three levels (following Weaver): <
>>>> > A. (Shannon-type) information processing ; <
>>>> > B. meaning sharing using languages;<
>>>> > C. translations among coded communications.<
>>>> > So, here we have a subsumptive hierarchy"<
>>>> I was wondering if this note means to imply an *all inclusive* list of
>>>> traits to be considered in modeling information? Or, alternatively . .
>>>> what would such an all inclusive list look like?
>>>> Marcus Abundis
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
More information about the Fis