From information to multinformation


In a previous blog I proposed that information may assume a great number of forms (infinite?). (see the Spam architecture posting for visual example).

We need to evolve from reading information via textual and linguistic communication to recognizing other possible forms of information.

As we evolve to recognize other possible forms of information. The result of this inquiry may lead us to the recognization of multinformations. 

Multinformation  may increase our ability to communicate and our ability to think, perceive and process information.

Multinformation may also lead us to the realization that the environments around us may-be “texts” that may be “read” once we decipher the multinformational code.

We can already read the rings of a tree trunk as documentation of the contextual seasons throught the years. We have reated tools that take biopsies of our organs so we can read them (we can also do this to ice, and to our earth).

What else around us contains information that we still don’t know how to “read”.

-Daniel Montano
Dynamic vocabulary:

Mina: an abbreviation for “most if not all”


One thought on “From information to multinformation

  1. freakaroni

    Hi Daniel,
    Absolutely everything contains information in it that we don’t necessarily know how to “read” (or even want to).

    You use the word read to relate to both “messaging” and “diagnostic evaluation”. Messaging, the intentional conveying of information for meaning (speech, writing, signs), should be distinguished from diagnostic evaluation, the critical analysis of the nature of a thing (biopsy charts and tree rings).

    [“We need to evolve from reading information via textual and linguistic communication to recognizing other possible forms of information.”]

    I think here you infer that we need more critical analysis to garner more information to gain more undertanding of things. But can a person know an infitite number of things? We humans must filter a ridiculous amount of excess information as it is (or we’d be insane).

    I also think the Spam Architecture art is interesting. Communication is more complex a matter than a spammer just putting their thought into words and hoping their audience will reverse the process. A writer(speaker,artist)’s intention is distinctively reflexive. The writer intends to produce a certain effect on his readers partly by way of their recognising his intention to produce it. The effect specific to communicating is understanding, which consists in their recognition of that intention. So unless spammers anticipate the reading of their emails with these image-making tools, my conclusion is that spam-art-tools (and city-poetry-tools, etc) would be meaningless (not worthless, just without meaning) to society. Not saying they wouldn’t be cool, but nothing more than a technologically updated kaleidoscope.
    Alex Dragulescu’s Spam Architecture art is certainly thought provoking, anyhow. Alex certainly did intend to produce a certain effect on us (you and I) with his spam art. I wonder if it was completely successful.

    Thanks for the some interesting posts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s