Re: Information and Natural Languages

Dear Soeren, dear Koichiro,

the question is what does it mean to be an observer? or, in other
words, what is the ontological status of a non-observer. If to be an
observer means 'to be outside', does this mean that there are
entities which are 'per se' not outside? I am thinking about the
difference made by Luhmann between a system and the surrounding world
(Umwelt). Luhmann conceives systems as living (!) systems, and
particurlarly as socio-psychic systems (see article by Quortrup in
Soeren's journal: Cybernetics and Human Knowing). Is the difference
between System/World something similar (!) for instance to Heidegger'
s ontological difference?
My question concerns also the status of autopoietical systems as
living systems.
Kind regards
Rafael

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:46:45 +0100 (MET)
Reply-to: fis@listas.unizar.es
From: koichiro matsuno/7129 <kmatsuno@vos.nagaokaut.ac.jp>
To: Multiple recipients of list <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: Information and Natural Languages

   Soeren's concise statement:

>So the whole
>definition of information is tied to the notion of an 'observer'.
>Therefore what we have 'outside' can only be 'potential information'.

is what I have been chasing after. Of course, autopoiesis definitely
has something to say on this. At the same time, Rafael's theory
of messages may ask us to think about the grammatology of autopoiesis
in general, or messages in particular.

   Regards,
   Koichiro

     Koichiro Matsuno
Received on Wed Dec 10 15:19:13 1997