From: Diego Remus (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed 07 Jan 2004 - 11:46:23 GMT
so (hello, there) what is informative is the event in which one's mind (be it) recognizes or applies some value (intelectual or informative) to something it captures or senses (or be it, evokes), being it or not an information a priori?
Can somehing which is not informative be an information? Can something which is not an information be informative? I take as premiss that both may possibly occur together. So, is something informative independent of the very act in which one (one's mind) considers it valuable, not before this "reception act", not in its virtual potential?
Is information some process in our minds more than in the outside, sign-mediated world? I think this premiss accords to the affirmative "minds replicate, memes don't".
In this line, I can take: information is the process in which one's mind "intelectual state" or conceptual basis is tensed by some effect, being caused to react to it. (In other words) when the concepts or the actual attention has its formation, its structure put through a "refresh", "reprocess" act due to having considered (takien into account, attention) some thing (which may be an information, be it a human product or not), thus (the mind) performing an informative event.
Our mind sets itself (ourselves) in an evaluative process of any stimuli, it is, then, "working" intelectually, actualizing. The process is information, and the stimuli are only informative (at all, are only stimuli) because the mind considers them.
How do you, subscribers, take this? And you, Kenneth?
Van oost Kenneth <email@example.com> wrote:
" The power to put yourself in one other his shoes is called empathy. "
Serge Daney, wrote once that " information " has no right to call itself informative, because information is structural one- sided, it can never reveal the totality of a/ one situation.
He called, paradoxal, the fiction movie in essence informative because we ain 't confronted with documented facts, but just with " situated grammar " ,[ descriptive words ] namely that each conflict implies two parties and thus two equal important points of view.
The choise has to be made as it seems between one- sided facts and the plural imagery of fiction. The profit of such an enterprise which shows the situation as a combined action of two parties, is the shaking off, of partia- lity ( demagogism and propaganda) and the achievement of one tragic lecture. We leave behind the kind of sensations and reflexes which it provokes, reflection becomes possible.
In memetic terms, to understand to its full extend any meme we must consider its background, context, etc. Any meme is getting born, lives and dies with and within its own descriptive, situated grammar. Any difference within and of the background, surrounding or environment changes the meme its meaning. Moreover, the point of view of any other is something we can 't grasp to its full extend anyway: - even if we do consider to move over to the other side, than the earlier, own party becomes the ennemy.
What we need is a point of view far beyond of what the parties has to say. This point of view mustn 't be able to identify itself within a strict boundary, but needs to be an abstractum in res- pect to the totality of the situation. What we thus actually do when we speak, is talking with ab- stract metaphors collectively known to us without ever reaching a full understanding/ commitment/ etc.
The only way out is an extreme use of words ( one meaning), and thus in its path a detached use of grammar. One meaning - one meme !?
Central anti-spam do Yahoo! Mail: com dicas, d˙vidas e curiosidades!
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 07 Jan 2004 - 11:53:35 GMT