[Fis] Meta-observer?

[PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ]

Dear FISers,

Although I share Terry's concern, I do not think that expostulating one's 
general framework is going to facilitate the discussions. Perhaps oposite, 
as it will introduce a trend towards generalization that fortifies the 
perspectival differences and makes the rhetorics less adjusted to the 
concrete. The problem basically resides in the persistent immaturity of the 
"information synthesis" so to speak. Defenders of each approach advocate a 
different "observer", charged in each case with their favorite 
conceptualizations. Taking into account the apparent multitude of dimensions 
of information, and its almost unfathomable reach, a "battery" of those 
observers has to be in place. And an agile switching among the observers has 
to be established. A sort of "attention" capable of fast and furious 
displacements of the focus...  helas, this means a meta-observer or an
observer-in-command.
But what sort of reference may such a metaobserver arbitrate? There is no 
conceivable book of rules about the switching between heterogeneous 
disciplinary bodies.
I see only one way, imitating the central goal of nervous systems: the 
metaobserver should finally care about our collective social life. It was 
Whitehead, as far as I remember, who put it: "to live, to live better." In 
each level of organization it is the life cycle of the concerned entities 
and the aggregates built upon them what matters.
Information is not only about logic-formal aspects. It is the bread and 
butter of complexity, that which allows contemporary social life.
So, in the coming session about "dataism" we can also explore these themes.

Best--Pedro

  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20180228/e0f25a9f/attachment.html>