Cancel
Comment on Archeodatalogy - Entwined, Enmeshed, Entangled

Wildcat Wed, Feb 27, 2013
Thank you John, Spaceweaver and Starwalker for the pertinent and relevant comments and questions, I shall try and answer some of these issues as the flow permits with time being at a premium and the work being in progress.

I shall start with Spaceweaver first issue namely:

"1. From the first premise, if an individual is/has multiplicity of identities, what possibly hold it together as a distinct entity? Such premise assumes an implicit biological (or otherwise) embodiment that connects and coheres these identities and leaves out the possibility of distributed individuals (multi-minds and multiply embodies individuals). I would suggest to develop instead the concept of identity as a multiplicity. A multiplicity stands for a mesh of distinct yet inseparable elements. Such definition of neo-individuality grounded in a multiple identity resolves the above-indicated problems."

Wildcat: An individual is held together by embodiment and carries a distinct identity only in relation to said embodiment, however to follow the thread of your question there is no implicit assumption here but a correlated empirical observation. Moreover the premise I take here is not contrary to identity as multiplicity, au contraire, the mesh of distinct yet inseparable elements is a nested infocology in the embodied cognition not unlike a module in a hypercomplex system. I do not believe that what we need is a neo-individuality as such, for the simple reason that the very concept individual is in the process of being transformed, the term itself, being a recognizable feature of an antiquated language.
Multi-minds and multiply embodied individuals are a definite possibility though presently we can only assume that such entities enjoy a Lewis like ‘real’ world (though of course these are logically consistent). Truth to tell I do not see a problem here.
The whole idea rests with a rhizome like infrastructure (not unlike the neural structure of our brains) mustering its computing power per need (or per impression) recreating itself on a moment-by-moment basis and allowing a seemingly continuous sequence of overlapping modules (or identities).

We could of course speak about the perceptual now where and when ‘it all comes together’ but that would not give us yet the pointed realization that we ‘as embodied awareness’ carry a wide variety of personae that are fundamentally adjacent to each other and at times fully contradicting one another.

Spaceweaver: "2. Infocology which becomes a very prominent concept in this article remains unclear because it relies too much on environments of information exchange that are defined by software platforms (e.g. twitter). The concept need to be developed independently of such platforms in order to carry the significance assigned to it. A major example I can think of an infocology is a language, or particular language games within a language (e.g. how psychologists or computer scientists communicate professionally among them). The difference is that such examples exposes a rich landscape of meaning relations and nuances and not only the raw means and protocols that constrain and specify information transfer between agents."

Wildcat: I definitely agree with you that the concept of Infocology can and should be extended (and is in fact being extended in my larger scheme of writings). Nevertheless the Information ecologies we need apply our minds here need by necessity (at least initially) be constrained to technological ecologies if for no other reason that the technologically enhanced infocologies we find ourselves in have no similarity in our culture and brains, not in scope and not in extensibility, but more importantly perhaps, these have no histories and no past and thus demand a new epistemology and even if one dares a new ontology.
I shall however take your advice to heart and in future exposition embed some of the other clarifications of the term infocology as applied to language, culture and mind. (a dedicated paper might be in order here.)

-
My replies to the comments will be updated here