Replying to LO26118 --
Last Tuesday, continuing our conversation, Michael wrote, in part,
> + Maybe we are using 'information' in two very different ways, one more
> 'thoughtful' (cerebral?) and the other more 'heartfelt' (emotional?). So
> my mind could be informed one way (e.g. the outdoor temperature in the
> flight attendant example) and my heart informed another way (e.g. the
> smile of the person delivering the message).
>
> + Maybe the concept of information needs to be 'reserved' for utilitarian
> situations, and we need to settle on some other term for something that
> causes amusement or awe. Maybe information causes / enables you to do
> something, while this other thing causes / enables you to -feel-
> something. That is, I -feel- charmed or amused or awed rather than ...
> some different consequence than what I see from becoming informed. This
> brings information into the world of action or behavior and out of the
> world of feelings or sensations. Is that useful? Does it feel right?
It doesn't to me. I think we may be using the word in different ways, but
it's not clear to me that it would be useful to reserve the word
"information" uniquely for that which elicits or generates
acting/doing/deciding (and, using your typology, is essentially
cognitive), and somehow distinguishing this both verbally and actually
from that which elicits or generates feeling (is affective). Would you
like to propose a word, and a definition, that makes this distinction?
if so, I'd appreciate it if you would also propose why such a distinction
is helpful.
> + Maybe not all communications can be / ought to be evaluated on the
> noise/data/information/knowledge continuum. >
I think I would agree, but would wonder again if limiting "information" to
your special case, and calling other communication something else helps us
much.
> Again in the work
> setting specifically, but perhaps even in the family setting where
> decisions are in order -- if I want to 'help' someone do something, I need
> to know what kinds of decisions that person faces, with the implication
> that my knowing that will determine what I have that might qualify as
> information for the other person.
Would you then consider that decision-making, for which information is the
primary resource, has some sort of primacy in human acting and being, in
comparison with "merely" feeling or experiencing? can we not "help"
people to act without analytically considering their decision-making
process? Maybe I'm not understanding, but to me this limits the scope of
what it is to be human rather dramatically.
> Thanks for the note! You've caused me to look more carefully at this
> issue of information.
You're welcome, and I appreciate the respectful spirit in which you
responded. Perhaps others will join the conversation.
What do others think?
Malcolm Burson
Maine DEP
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.