Juan Miguel Aguado (School of Information and Communication Studies, Universidad de Murcia, Spain)
By attempting to fix an observable magnitude, the concept of information involves a cognitive model that enables a double ontological rupture: between subject and world, on one side, and between cognition and action, on the other side. A genealogical approach to information as a simultaneously epistemological and cognitive crossroad highlights the centrality of observation theory in the resolution of its contradictions. The recursive nature of observation inherent to informational logics makes constructivist assumptions especially relevant as a key contribution for an epistemological revision of the ideas of information and communication.
- Full article published in Triple C, 7(2), special issue What is really information?
- Spanish article published in ¿Qué es información?, 2008
Contributions 
April 30, 2010 at 12:07 am
Yo, heavy introduction, but it’s cool. As you say: Rupture: “between subject and world, on one side, and between cognition and action, on the other side;” but what if rupture was due to the “interpretation of the subject and object world,” on one side, and, on the other side, due to “an ethical interpretation for cognition and action,” then any conclusion would be inconclusive. It seems to me, in order for information theory to work, on this level, it would have to quantify an “ethical world view.” And, if I’m not mistaken, that is an arbitrary assessment (but it doesn’t have to be)!
April 30, 2010 at 11:12 am
Thank you for your comment. Well, the mention to the ontological rupture refers to the epistemological consequences of sucn concept of information in observation theory. The constructivist point is the question about the role of the observer in the very idea of information. If we decide to obviate it (i.e., information is ‘something out there’) we are posing a concept of information independent from the selection process performed by the observer. And to pose a concept of information independent form selection processes has some operational cosequences which I am not sure they could be understood belongin to the field of Ethics…
May 2, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Thanks for the reply, it made me think.
It seems that we agree on the nature of the observer, language, world, and what it means to acquire knowledge of the world. The constructionist point of view, and in this case, the “radical constructionist point of view,” is why I believe we agree. I do not have the footnotes to defend my position, but here’s how it dovetails with yours.
Knowledge, world, and proto subject are all necessarily connected. “The difference that makes a difference” (Batson) connects the proto subject to environment, (the first ontological rupture) while what I call the implicative affirmative of the not-me-self constitutes the second ontological rupture, or, as you say, that “the subject and object are then constituted not strictly in cognition, but in the leap from cognition to knowledge.”
This “self” condition is, as you say,”the distance from the agent to the subject… that qualitative leap from cognition to knowledge, from the cognitive agent (proto-subject) to the subject-observer, (the self) is only possible within the context of the socio-linguistic phenomenical domain.”—however, using the concept of the implicative affirmative of the not-me-self allows me to say roughly the same thing in simpler language. For instance, instead of using the words, “The subject emerges simultaneously upon the natural condition of the proto-subject and upon the social condition of the world enacted in language,” I can say, “in the psychological mind quadrant, we are constantly being stimulated, inspired, (and disgusted) by the hermeneutic circle of communication that comprises this quadrant. The independence, integrity, and freedom of the individual,–the groups, organizations, and institutions that the individual participates in, are all encountered in this quadrant. Language, politics, morality, and religion originate here. Justice gets done here. Worldviews are created here. “Approved life styles” are affirmed here. Hamlet gets read, discussed, and criticized here. When our purple self horizon expands, it moves us further into this quadrant, into that place where the scope of human discourse burgeons. To quote Lett, (speaking in a different context) this is the quadrant “where people will assign meanings to their activities and experiences and will invest considerable intellectual and emotional currency in the development, expression, and preservation of those meanings.” (James Lett, The Human Enterprise, p.97) But, even though our mind is, so to speak, set free in the purple quadrant, our body remains in the blue quadrant. So, where do we go when the blue-self horizon expands?
Well, if you’re me and you live in a place where snow covers the ground six months of the year, you dream about wintering in Florida.]
Even though the “self,” as you say, “is knowing in the field of existence. Aphoristically: living is knowing (living is effective action in the fact of existing as a living being)” (Varela, 1996, p. 149),” this same “self” is still connected to the emotional currency that goes into the development, expression, and preservation of all meanings, hence one can never escape the ethical content of information.
A good Sunday morning—thanks for helping me get the day started!