<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6002.19434" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dear Mark,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thank you for this note, which points correctly to
the fact that there was something missing in the debate. Intersubjectivity is a
good word for it, but phenomenology in general is probably no longer the answer,
if it ever was. Check out the new book by Tom Sparrow, <EM>The End of
Phenomenology, </EM>Edinburgh, 2014; Sparrow is a key player in a new 'movement'
called Speculative Realism which is proposed as a replacement. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What does this have to do with information? I think
a great deal and worth a new debate, even <EM>in extremis. </EM>The problem with
Husserlian phenomenology is that it fails to deliver an adequate picture of
reality, but speculative realism is too anti-scientific to do any better.
</FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2>What I think is possible, however, is to
reconcile the key insights of Heidegger with science, especially, with
information science. This places information science in a proper intersubjective
context where its utility can be seen. For discussion, I hope.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Best,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Joseph</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=johnsonmwj1@gmail.com href="mailto:johnsonmwj1@gmail.com">Mark
Johnson</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=fis@listas.unizar.es
href="mailto:fis@listas.unizar.es">fis</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, August 01, 2015 1:18
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Fis] Answer to Mark</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Dear Fernando,
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Without wanting to spawn a new debate, I think it might be useful to flag
something up about the 'phenomenology' that you mention. I understand Joseph's
reaction to what to you say and I agree. However, phenomenology is a rich a
complex topic, and few scholars have the tenacity to delve deeply into the
difficult and detailed thinking of Husserl, Heidegger, Schutz, tracing it's
evolution in French existentialism, hermeneutics, or from Schutz to Berger,
Luckmann, Parsons and then Luhmann. At the very least there is the division
between Husserlian transcendental phenomenology with its "transcendental ego"
to which Heidegger and many others objected, and the existential phenomenology
of everyday experience which Heidegger developed instead. Husserl, for his
part thought Heidegger had completely misunderstood him. To say he might have
been right is not to take away the genius of Heidegger's own insights.</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>The point is, when we say "phenomenology", what do we mean?</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Joseph's concern relates (I think) to what appears to be a missing
account of "intersubjectivity" in your paper. But of course, intersubjectivity
was a central concern for Husserl, and his ideas on it were much refined by
Schutz, who seems to me to be a critically important figure (I'm grateful to
Loet for pointing me in Schutz's direction!). To be 'phenomenological' does
not preclude intersubjectivity. However, if you are Heideggerian, then I think
it is true that Heidegger's understanding of human relations is rather weak
(interesting to reflect on this in relation to Heidegger's politics!)</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I suspect that the phenomenological literature and its history is of
considerable relevance to current debates about information. </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial
size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Best wishes,</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><FONT
face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Mark</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_extra><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Fernando Flores <SPAN
dir=ltr><<A href="mailto:fernando.flores@kultur.lu.se"
target=_blank>fernando.flores@kultur.lu.se</A>></SPAN> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<DIV lang=EN-US vlink="purple" link="blue">
<DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">Dear
Mark<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'"><U></U><U></U></SPAN> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; TEXT-ALIGN: justify"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">Thanks
for your commentaries. Our use of the term “foundational” is more
philosophical than practical. You are right; the term contradicts in some
sense our intentions which are “very” practical. (This is a term which we
could leave behind without hesitation.) In fact, we have no intentions in
“instituting” a new concept of “information”. Our work is “foundational”
only in one aspect, and that is in searching for methods to measure the
informational value of collective acts in everyday life. We found that it
was necessary to classify human acts in such a way that their informational
value could be “operative” (useful in practical tasks); we did that,
grouping the acts in types depending on their complexity. We found that
these acts could also be distinguished in relation to their consequences on
the everyday world. We noticed that the movement from the very complex acts
to the simplest acts follows a reduction of the surrounding world and that
the human body is the natural reference in the understanding of this
reduction. We knew that we could express informational value in relation to
probabilities and found in the von Mises/Popper frequency series a possible
and easy solution (an accessible mathematics). We insist; we have been
working only with practical problems and we have not been thinking so much
of which concept of information we are using; </SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">we
believe that cybernetics does not address the practical problems we
confront</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; LINE-HEIGHT: 150%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Courier New'">.
However, we are sure that if we succeed, some cybernetic theorem will
explain our success. The question is that the state of knowledge we have
today is insufficient to understand the simplest informational problems in
our surrounding world. Informational theory and cybernetics have been
developed in the world of Physics; instead, we try to develop solutions that
work in everyday life. If you understand as “variety” the measure of the
“states of a system”, the series of von Mises/Popper could be our kind of
variety, but we are not sure. You are certain, our “acts” are neither
“actions” nor “events”, but they are not the hybrids of Latour either. Our
acts are phenomenological; they are intended to be congruent with concepts
as “work”, “money”, “culture”, “thing”, “market”, and the like. The concept
“informational value” for example, is very close to the concept of
“information” without meaning exact the same. <U></U><U></U></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Fernando
Flores PhD<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Associate Professor<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">History
of Ideas and Sciences<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><SPAN lang=SV style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black">Lund
University<U></U><U></U></SPAN></P>
<P
class=MsoNormal><U></U><U></U> </P></DIV></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Fis
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:Fis@listas.unizar.es">Fis@listas.unizar.es</A><BR><A
href="http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis" target=_blank
rel=noreferrer>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all>
<DIV><BR></DIV>-- <BR>
<DIV class=gmail_signature>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>Dr. Mark William Johnson</DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>Phone: 07786 064505<BR></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>Email: <A href="mailto:johnsonmwj1@gmail.com"
target=_blank>johnsonmwj1@gmail.com</A></DIV>
<DIV>Blog: <A href="http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com"
target=_blank>http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com</A> </DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>Fis mailing
list<BR>Fis@listas.unizar.es<BR>http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>