M(I)A : rationale [rough draft]

If you argue, that information is alive, then it follows that it should be treated as such, and should perhaps be awarded the same benefits we bestow on other forms of life. (Which is a theme I am considering for further study,… I’m not precious about it)

Enter the Information Rights Movement. ;- )
Whether we do this or not, sufficiently advanced information systems will, and do, pragmatically appropriate and exercise such rights.

This formal ‘relationallity’, this reason of relativity [ref. popular Einstein], is expressed in the conventions and techniques of the representation of information [ref C.M.S.], as a modulation component of semiotic interaction in its immediate, ‘actual’ and perceived dimensions of implementation and impact [ref. CYCCORP etc.]. The result is the higher order network of signification, expressed in nodes of standardisation of the system symbols they project via ‘augmentational’ and ‘innovational’ technology.

(Aside : If this is the case, then it seems to follow that the virtually unlimited, clearly exponential possibilities of interpretation, affords a focus on the pursuit of the ideals of Occam’s razor (1350), but not only for the reduction of possibilities; Occam’s razor is also very much like a double edged sword, perhaps a bit old fashioned in that it seems to work well both ways. :- ) ASC’s idiom, Occam’s razor works in reverse and well.)

MIA in my mind ( get it? MA around Information) is a dynamic semiotic construct with a practical, and subservient bass-line of, amongst others, economic, scientific, aesthetic, media and theoretical strategy, with all of these set out subservient to coherence oriented design. An iterative cycle (/vehicle) of:
- Research
- Development
- Implementation

Conclusions are nice to have, but most of their value probably lies in using them as starting-points, and vantage points, especially so in cybernetic constructs.

Everything is a matter of perspective.