[Fis] [External Email] LECTURE RESPONSES UP TO 23.01.20

[Stanley N Salthe]

Joseph -- Regarding:

A2.3 18.01 Stan points correctly to the dialectics of modern art, where
distortions are ‘false’, markers of an artist’s sensibility. Photography in
contrast is ‘correct’, but can itself be manipulated as disinformation. Art
is not disinformation, however, since there is no intent to deceive for
material gain.

      S: I think that, in view of the New York artworld, there is certainly
intent directed to gain. Whether there is deceit or not I suppose depends
upon the delusions concerning

what is taken to BE art at any given time. Recently that might even have
been a pile of trash in context!

STAN


On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 10:27 AM Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner en bluewin.ch>
wrote:

> Dear Friends and Colleagues,
>
>
>
> Herewith as promised is my second group of comments. Since there are some
> things with which I can agree in most responses, they will be indexed D/A,
> rather than D. Rather than separate them for another later group, I have
> also included comments with which I agree, designated A2.
>
>
>
> I look forward to your responses as the basis for the final phase of the
> discussion.
>
>
>
> Thank you and best wishes,
>
>
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
>
>
> D/A.1 03.01 Michel was quite positive on the intent of the Lecture, and I
> accept his thanks. I placed his comments in this category simply because I
> felt he was arguing from examples that were too binary, such as optical
> illusions.
>
>
>
> A2.1 Mark’s emphasis in this note on communication and complexity and its
> ‘management’ are right on. It can and will be included in the final summary
> of possible FIS ‘actions’.
>
>
>
> D/A.2 18.01 As Loet knows, I have great respect for his theory of
> communication. I just think his critique of the notion of truth could have
> been stated more positively. How do the code and progress of science
> ‘operate’? Also, falseness is not restricted only to leaders. Finally, for
> better understanding, Louis XIV may well be called the Great King of the
> codification, but the contrast with Caligula is not warranted since I did
> not claim such a role for him. For me, a theory of falsehood, as of
> disinformation, begins with intent.
>
>
>
> A2.3 18.01 Stan points correctly to the dialectics of modern art, where
> distortions are ‘false’, markers of an artist’s sensibility. Photography in
> contrast is ‘correct’, but can itself be manipulated as disinformation. Art
> is not disinformation, however, since there is no intent to deceive for
> material gain.
>
>
>
> A2.4 20.01 Again, I take from this comment by Pedro on the parallel
> ‘communication’ thread the need to refocus on disinformation and the
> possibility of its detection.
>
>
>
> D/A.3 21.01 I (Joseph) accept the rebuke of Pedro and an off-line member
> of the group. The latter stated that my tone was ‘Fascist’. In agreeing,
> with apologies, I note that an ‘anti-Fascist’ manifesto can still have a
> Fascist tone, to be avoided. My criticism of cultural relativism still
> stands for further discussion.
>
>
>
> A.4 22.01 Terry’s note goes to the heart of intent and its complexity. I
> tend to think that ‘cultural-hyper-relativism’, produced with the intention *only
> *to persuade and not to mislead is mis-information, but is probably quite
> rare.
>
> His second point comes back to the problem of markers for disinformation
> or rather disinforming. It will add to the body of comments along these
> lines.
>
>
>
> A.5 22.01 Pedro discusses how disinformation can arise in situations
> involving large bodies of knowledge as well as the new media, which
> overlap. There is a link to emotional reactions to, I suppose, both
> information annd disinformation that in and of itself may be a form of
> disinformation, depending as always, as I see it, on intent.
>
>
>
> D.1 22.01 I (Joseph) regret that Krassimir not taken just one fact and
> given his expert analysis of it. As to some comments by others being at the
> ‘wiki-level’, that seems a polite and accurate way of describing them.
>
> I do not see, however, without further discussion which I hope he will
> provide, how a theory that describes the relations of mathematical entities
> (morphisms) and ways of mapping between them (functors) can apply to
> information process phenomena. A structure is not necessarily a static
> entity. The term meta- is used in the sense of both ‘about’ and ‘beyond’;
> especially in the second use, I do not see a requirement for the principle,
> from category theory, of exclusivity and exhaustivity. There is no need for
> absolute separation between, say, between physics and metaphysics. I think
> there is a lot more to be said about the dynamic structure of information
> and disinformation in this sense because I see in it the possibility for
> new markers for disinformation. I hope this justifies my having gone to
> this length.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis en listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
> ----------
> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>
> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo gestionada por
> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en el
> siguiente enlace:
> https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse de
> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
> http://listas.unizar.es
> ----------
>
------------ pr�xima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200123/d1badfca/attachment.html>