Re: Next stage: Q4, Q5, Q6

Dear Jerry,

thanks for your excellent clarification
on the nature of *organic messages* (your
answer to John) particularly as distinct from the
engineering perspective (Shannon). It seems to me
that (logically) prior to message generation,
transmission, reception and interpretation (and
storage/retrieval of *past messages*?) there
is the question about the concept of *message*.
I have made some research concerning this
concept at the anthropological level. Here are
a few results:
- A message is sender-dependent, i.e. it is a
heteronomic or *asymmetric* concept: we
send (or receive) a message, but we
ask for information.
- A message is supposed to bring something
new/relevant to the receiver (form the standpoint of
the sender)
- A message can be distorted through *social
noise*
- A message can be coded and transmitted
(better: offered) through different media
- A message has a (in a large sense, inlcuding
'tacit' dimensions in the case of objects)
linguistic character and causes a process
of interpretation from the receiver standpoint.
This implies some kind of *pre-understanding*
as well as an *autonomy* regarding the receiver's
interpretation. Luhmann makes the distinction
between *Mitteilung* (=offering a message)
and *Information* (=the selection of the
message and its interpretation (=*Verstehen*)
within the system)= *communication*
- Messages can be seen as *pragmatic
information* as they are supposed to influence
(in an imperative, indicative or optative way)
the receiver)
- We can conceive a sender that imagines to
have an (imperative) *message* for all human
beings in all times and vice versa (someone who
things *everything* is a kind of message to
him/her). There are individual and social
*deseases* related to these possibilities as
well as *steps* in between the extremes (dependent
on power structures concerning especially the
technical media used for message transmission)
- From an Aristotelian viewpoint we can distinguish
between form, content, goal and producers of
messages (Vilem Flusser has developped a
*comunicology* in which some of theses structures
are analyzed. For instance the difference between
dialogical (=create new information) and discursive
(=distribute information) goal of communication.
- A key question concerns the criterium for considering
that a *message* has achieved (or not) its goal. I
think that this criterium is dependent on the above
mentioned parameters. In other words, I plea for
at theoretical (formalized) ad historical (or contingent)
approach to the (as you can see) non-trivial question
*what are messages?*
- My colleague Peter Janich has developed a *culturalist*
theory of information considering it (originally) as an
anthropological category (to be applied only analogically
at the biological and/or tecnical level). According to
Janich, information is concerned with a pragmatic
dialogue situation in which we may ask for something
that is invariant with regard to the sender, the receiver
and the way it is being communicated (for instance:
asking at a train station for an *information* about
when a train starts etc.). As far as I can see, *information*
and *message* are not synomyms, particularly with
regard to the above mentioned *asymmetry*
- If the medium is (not) the message... what are
messages? We have media theory but not a theory
of messages (or not as an object of a broad and
interdisciplinary (!) discussion).
I do not know how much biologists in general
and geneticists in particular can take profit of this.
For a more detailed (also empirical analysis) see
my (in German): http://www.capurro.de/botschaft.htm
Carl-Friedrich von Weiszaecker would probably remark
that there is a (necessary) *circle* concerning the
question about *in-formation* (=determination of
form, genitivus obiectivus) as it happens to be at
the biological level, is (for us) dependent on what
we think to be a *message* i.e. of the determination
of form (genitivus subiectivus). But probably
modern biology is teaching is that a pure platonistic
(and idealistic) view is finally (for us) untenable as
(also) we are primordially message receivers.
kind regards
Rafael
Received on Sat Jul 6 16:13:43 2002