Re: Distinguishing between information as info'mation v in*formation Re: [xmca] The distinction between "information" and "knowledge" A response to Brandom

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

You know, Larry, the idea of "the main focus of chat" comes to close to
declaring some sort of "chat" orthodoxy. The focus on the origins of the
kind of bio-cultural-social-
historical science that grew up out of the Russian version of Euro-American
thought in the MCA/XMCA community seems clear enough. But (to me at least)
it is clear that this particular line of thought in human history is part of
a much broader and diverse kind of "flow" of ideological/social systems.
And, it also seems clear that from within this discourse community there is
a great range of opinions about matters of general concern.

ISCAR represents one, pretty broad representation of those sympathetic with
the general bio-socio-cultural-historical view. I am not sure what MCA and
XMCA represent. Something narrower, but not narrow. I personally started
with trying to understand Luria, then Vygotsky, then Leontiev, while at the
same time learning about Boas, Bateson, Ingold, ethnocience, etc. I learned
that Dewey was interesting from trying to figure out those odd (to me)
historical references in Vygotsky and Luria.

But look at all of great relevance I have left out! Whole "family
resemblance" bundles
of ideas and great thinkers. As my sculptor rock collecting friend's t-shirt
says, "So many rocks, so little time." I know just how he feels!

Maybe we should look upon xmca as a sort of "schizmogenesis" tool for the
growth of ideas and new practices.

But maybe we can arrange to bundle some of these materials in ways that seem
potentially useful so that they will promote the exuberant development.

I wonder what Eugene thinks?
mike



On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Mike and Tony
>
> Mike you mention it may be enough to offer drive by references to Ingold,
> Merleau-Ponty, Bateson, Gibson,as a way to point others to further readings.
> Mike, my reflections on this comment is that as a first step we must have
> our attention drawn to the possibility of alternative ways of orienting to
> our subject matter BEFORE we go deeper into the topic.  For myself, as I
> post these reflections from outside the main focus of CHAT I wonder if I am
> introducing too broad a perspective.  When you or Tony respond, as in this
> post, it gives me "confirmation" to continue thinking out loud.
> As a particular example, my reflections this summer on John Shotter's
> notions of "con-scientia" within speech acts; Taylor's exploration of "the
> disclosive realm" as a way of life, etc as also exploring themes of
> "engagement", "movement", "in*formation of attention" etc.  I have
> questioned if these topics are too broad to include in conversations that
> are exploring themes of "understanding" as "stepping back from",
> "differentiating from", science as cutting or scissors or making
> distinctions, etc.  This tension seems to be a theme that runs through our
> history as stories of the  enlightenment, romanticism, "ideality &
> materiality", etc.
> Mike, going back to Ingold referencing Bateson, Merleau-Ponty, and Gibson.
> I am drawn to pay attention precisely because Ingold has engaged with these
> authors and been profoundly "moved" by their insights. It leads me to want
> to delve deeper into Ingold's works, precisely because I know he has been
> moved by their perspectives that are challenging the place of reasoning
> ALONE.  As Ingold mentioned he is forever thankful to participate in
> reasoning as this "method" of reflecting as a valuable indispensible tool
> BUT what all the authors I've mentioned are exploring is a deeper FELT
> foundation on which the ediface of reasoning, reflection, and representation
> has been constructed.  Reasoning as premises, principles, systems, are
> in*formed within a FELT environment [not a pre-existing nature in Ingold's
> terms].  This FELT environment of e-motion is a particular type of
> relational "movement" TOWARDS engagement, not to a stepping back from and
> reflecting ON that world through "observation" and "measuring".  This
> counting or measuring and the powerful tools we have developed in order to
> "observe" and "count" [as particular forms of "accounting"] are very
> powerful DESIGN tools that have constructed within particular kinds of
> worlds we now inhabit.  However, I wonder if we conflate our tools of
> measurement and ways of making "cuts" by the methods of scientific reasoning
> [as a particular way of life] with the more foundational "disclosive" realm
> of orienting and in*forming through developing the skills of paying
> attention as ENGAGEMENT WITH, not OBSERVING OF.  Engagement with IS
> FELT movement [towards or away] but it is ALWAYS dialogical, and
> intersubjective and "being with"
>
> Mike, you posted John Shotter's article exploring "con-scientia" and Ingold
> has two articles in the "papers for Discussion".
> I still wonder if the topic I'm discussing is too broad for CHAT or if this
> line of inquiry can be one stream within the intertwining dialogical
> conversation  of CHAT.
>
> Andy, always as I reflect on this topic I ask myself if this is privleging
> the "merely" interactional search for "recognition" and "confirmation"
> [Buber's term] and loosing sight of the third level but the topic  does draw
> me to orient in this direction.
>
> Larry
>
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 8:41 PM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am in the middle of *Being Alive* so it is little wonder that in reading
>> (first) tony's note I thought immediately of Ingold. This entire way of
>> thinking seems very important to me including the links to Bateson that
>> you
>> provide, Larry.
>>
>> I am in-fluenced in this matter by a trip around the Olympic peninsula
>> where
>> the remnants of a number of Native American groups that are historically a
>> part of the numerous people's inhabiting the northwest coast of the
>> continent live.
>>
>> One strong impression from my trip was a clearly expressed cultural
>> antimony
>> between pre-European - contact peoples and the northern Europeans who
>> subjugated them. I was particularly im-pressed by the way in which
>> traditional pre-European cultures seem to embody an ethos of living "in"
>> nature rather than triumphing "over" nature. Ingold was very much on my
>> mind.
>>
>> I have also been thinking about the problems of xmca being "too narrow"
>> while iscar is "too broad" that Volker raised in an early post-ISCAR note.
>> I
>> have not caught up with that discussion, but it seems we need some way to
>> share texts sufficiently to take them as a joint object of attention and
>> discussion if we are going to get past the "drive by reference" stage in
>> such matters. Or maybe that is not what xmca should strive for -- perhaps
>> just letting people know that there is Ingold, who references Gibson,
>> Merleau-Ponty, Bateson, etc is enough for those who wish to pursue
>> matters.
>>
>> mike
>>
>> PS- Another impression from this trip: The local people, both those who
>> trace ancestry to Native American and European routes are badly exploited
>> in
>> that part of the world. The only people who seem to be benefiting are the
>> timber companies and the (relatively) wealthy people from Seattle and
>> elsewhere who spend money to enjoy walking in the national park or killing
>> the local fish -- money upon which the locals live as it trickles through
>> the rain.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 6:39 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Tony
>> > I see this line of inquiry as very promising. The notion of in*formation
>> > that you point to seems to be the same family of ides" that Ingold is
>> > exploring.  As I pursue this line of inquiry I keep reflecting on Andy's
>> > caution and ask if this is "merely" interactional assumptions of
>> > "recognition" which he is trying to include within a third level [I
>> agree
>> > this third level is central but I wonder if this "second" interactional
>> > level must also be explored as also central to the formation of the
>> third
>> > level.]  I also struggle to include another level that points to issues
>> > that
>> > can be summed up in the term "suffering stranger" or the calling of the
>> > other and our responding to that calling. This speaks to issues of
>> > dependency and vulnerabity as central aspects of our human condition.
>> >
>> > "in*formation OF attention" & "education OF attention" are  notions
>> > pointing
>> > to a stance that does not privilege "form" as pre-existing
>> > attention. Ingold, in engaging with Bateson has a section which he
>> refers
>> > to
>> > as *steps to an ecology of LIFE* in response to Bateson's "steps to an
>> > ecology of MIND*  Ingold points to Bateson's insight that information
>> only
>> > exists relative to the perceiver MOVING within his/her surroundings.
>> Stable
>> > features of the world are indistinguishable and imperceptible unless we
>> > MOVE
>> > in relation to these features. We draw distinctions not by representing
>> > them
>> > graphically but by "pulling them out of the surroundings" and making
>> them
>> > distinct. Life, in Ingold's view, "is not the realization of
>> PRE-specified
>> > forms but the very process wherein forms are GENERATED and HELD in
>> place.
>> > Every being, as it is caught up in this process and carries it forward,
>> > arises as a singular center of awareness and AGENCY: an unfoldment, at
>> some
>> > particular nexus withIN it, of the generative POTENTIAL that is life
>> > itself"
>> > [ quoted from kindle]
>> >
>> > Tony, Ingolds notion of in*formation as form generated within an ecology
>> of
>> > life as "active" [not reactive] is his answer to Bateson's question What
>> is
>> > "organism plus environment"? For Ingold the plus is not an addition TO
>> the
>> > environment with the organism and environment as PRE-existing forms but
>> > rather the "whole-organism-in-its-environment" as the "point of
>> departure".
>> > Organism plus environment is not a compound of two "things" but one
>> > indivisible unity that is a developmental system and an ecology of life
>> > [with a history] From this perspective FORM is EMERGENT within the life
>> > force and Ingold maintains we therefore have "no need to appeal to a
>> > distinct domain of mind" to account for pattern and meaning in the
>> world.
>> > Mind and consciousness are NOT a layer of being over and above that of
>> the
>> > life of organisms. For Ingold, what we call mind "is the cutting edge of
>> > the
>> > life process itself, the ever MOVING front of what Alfred North
>> Whitehead
>> > called a 'creative advance into novelty' ".
>> >
>> > As first mentioned above, this line of inquiry of in*formation as
>> attention
>> > [as an intersubjective dialogical life process] has potential to
>> re-enchant
>> > the world and intertwine "giving and asking for reasons" within a larger
>> > way
>> > of life as orientation or wayfaring with others showing novices the way
>> > forward and giving them the tools to use as compass points along the
>> way.
>> > It
>> > also has the potential to construct "hearths" along the way for
>> suffering
>> > strangers to meet and share stories of the way forward and offer each
>> other
>> > guideposts to MARK the way.
>> >
>> > Larry
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Tony Whitson <twhitson@udel.edu>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > My post should have connected more explicitly to Larry's very
>> informative
>> > > post.
>> > >
>> > > A quick way to do that would be to suggest that where "Ingold refers
>> to
>> > > this process as an EDUCATION OF ATTENTION [borrowed from Gibson],"
>> that
>> > > sounds close to seeing the same process as an "information of
>> attention."
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Tony Whitson wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I am proposing a distinction based on the difference between
>> > "information"
>> > >> in its older sense, more related to "formation" in the sense of
>> > education
>> > >> -understood-as-"formation" (formacao, Bildung, etc.) -- a sense of
>> > >> "information" that is all but lost in current English usage -- versus
>> > the
>> > >> sense of "information" as the word is used today.
>> > >>
>> > >> In its older sense, I could say that his character is informed by her
>> > >> influence, or that my ideas about something are informed by what I
>> heard
>> > >> from you last night. This is the information of my thinking by your
>> > >> speaking, or the information of his character by her influence. Your
>> > >> speaking did and DOES participate in the formation of my thinking
>> about
>> > >> something.
>> > >>
>> > >> The short form "info" denotes stuff, rather than active participation
>> in
>> > a
>> > >> formation (of persons, ideas, institutions, concepts, customs, etc.,
>> _as
>> > >> formations_). I don't deny the reality or importance of information
>> as
>> > >> "info," but I think we need to recover the older sense, which we
>> cannot
>> > do
>> > >> without differentiating between "information" in the sanse of "info,"
>> > and
>> > >> "information" as a participatory, "informing" relationship, for which
>> > the
>> > >> shortened "info" does not work. I am now using "info'mation" and
>> > >> "in*formation" to mark this difference.
>> > >>
>> > >> This way of marking the difference is changed slightly from how I did
>> it
>> > >> in a book review for MCA, which has not appeared yet in a printed
>> issue,
>> > but
>> > >> is available now online (pending final editing). That discussion
>> (which
>> > >> follows sections addressing each of the three books in the review)
>> > includes
>> > >> OED definitions, but also some historical background on the
>> relationship
>> > >> between the now-prevailing idea of information and mathematical
>> > information
>> > >> theory at the birth of cybernetics and cognitivism in psychology.
>> > >>
>> > >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Larry Purss wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Andy, Arthur
>> > >>> Ingold has an interesting position on the giving and asking for
>> > reasons.
>> > >>> Ingold suggests information may be communicated in propositional
>> form
>> > >>> from
>> > >>> generation to generation. But for Ingold information is NOT
>> knowledge
>> > nor
>> > >>> do
>> > >>> we become any more knowledgeable through accumulating information.
>> Our
>> > >>> "knowledgeability consists in the capacity to SITUATE such
>> information
>> > >>> within the context of a DIRECT PERCEPTUAL ENGAGEMENT within our
>> > >>> environments. Ingold emphasizes, we develop this knowledgeability
>> not
>> > >>> through gathering information but rather by having things SHOWN to
>> us
>> > in
>> > >>> order that we "experience" by touch, taste, smell, hearing, seeing,
>> by
>> > >>> the
>> > >>> other person so it can be apprehended directly. In that way the
>> world
>> > is
>> > >>> revealed or DISCLOSED bit by bit to the novice. Ingold refers to
>> this
>> > >>> process as an EDUCATION OF ATTENTION [borrowed from Gibson]. Through
>> > the
>> > >>> fine-tuning of perceptual SKILLS the relational contexts of the
>> > >>> perceiver's
>> > >>> INVOLVEMENT dwelling in the world are not so much constructed as
>> > >>> discovered
>> > >>>
>> > >>> A very interesting stance on "information" and "knowlege"
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The term "environment" is contrasted with "nature"  We are INVOLVED
>> and
>> > >>> ENGAGED within environments but we take a stance of distance FROM
>> > >>> "nature"
>> > >>> Ingold is critical of the phrase "natural environment" as conflating
>> > two
>> > >>> very distinct notions.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Larry
>> > >>> ______________________________**____________
>> > >>> _____
>> > >>> xmca mailing list
>> > >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>> > >>>
>> > >>>
>> > >> Tony Whitson
>> > >> UD School of Education
>> > >> NEWARK  DE  19716
>> > >>
>> > >> twhitson@udel.edu
>> > >> ______________________________**_
>> > >>
>> > >> "those who fail to reread
>> > >> are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>> > >>                 -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>> > >> ______________________________**____________
>> > >> _____
>> > >> xmca mailing list
>> > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > > Tony Whitson
>> > > UD School of Education
>> > > NEWARK  DE  19716
>> > >
>> > > twhitson@udel.edu
>> > > ______________________________**_
>> > >
>> > > "those who fail to reread
>> > >  are obliged to read the same story everywhere"
>> > >                  -- Roland Barthes, S/Z (1970)
>> > > ______________________________**____________
>> > > _____
>> > > xmca mailing list
>> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<
>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>> > >
>> > __________________________________________
>> > _____
>> > xmca mailing list
>> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>> >
>> __________________________________________
>>
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca