<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"><html>
head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=utf-8"></head><body><div dir="ltr"><p>Dear FISers,</p><p>
</p><p>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.</p><p>But what sort of reference may such a
metaobserver arbitrate? There is no conceivable book of rules about
the switching between heterogeneous disciplinary bodies.</p><p>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. </p><p>Information is not only about logic-formal
aspects. It is the bread and butter of complexity, that which allows
contemporary social life. </p><p>So, in the coming session about
"dataism" we can also explore these themes.</p><p> </p><p>
Best--Pedro</p><p> </p><p> </p></div></body></html>