Re: If Academic Libraries Remove Computers, Will Anyone Come?

From: john g marr <jmarr_at_nyob>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 13:34:33 -0600
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
On Mon, 3 May 2010, Mitchell, Michael wrote:

> I'd substitute the word "knowledge" for your use of "information" and 
> then agree with most of what you are saying. Knowledge includes a 
> context for information.

  I would not agree, in that "knowledge" can (in one sense) represent 
cognitive interpretation (i.e., personal understanding of information 
applied to a specific purpose), whereas information is understood to be 
merely representational.  Interpretation of information provides 
knowledge, however glib, distorted or manipulative it might be (which 
information might be more about the interpreter than about the information 
being interpreted).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laval Hunsucker

> ... you don't grasp ... the difference between information ... and 
> "materials" : what I called "documents". This is in fact a large and ...
> significant distinction.

  "Documents" are simply the carriers of information, but they are also 
understood to be a special form of information (records).  Of course 
ideas are distinct from objects, but the organization of carriers of 
information can affect the interpretation of the information they contain 
or represent.

> [Information] cannot be organized for anybody else by librarians or ... 
> whosoever.

  Compilations [e.g., bibliographies, encyclopedias, etc.] and collections 
are organizations of information and knowledge.

> If you ... consider the term "hypostatization", you may better come to 
> see what kind of manoeuvre is involved here.

  Information is not abstract belief, opinion or concept (although much 
implied "knowledge" is), therefore the maneuver implied is not taking 
place.  It is true, however that a carrier of information could be 
considered more concrete than the information itself.

> It only, at best, muddies the waters -- while fatuously bolstering our 
> ego's, I suppose, and that seems sadly in fact to be the purpose

  Apparently so.

> [It is false] to say, in organizing materials (documents) and/or their 
> surrogates and metadata etc., that we are in the process of "organizing 
> information".

   If records are to be considered special forms of information, then the 
organization of them is organization of information.  Also, as the 
carriers are organized, so is the information contained by them.  In fact, 
it is possible to "muddy" the information (and the records) by 
mis-organizing it (them).

Best wishes,

J. Marr

                                             John G. Marr
                                             CDS, UL
                                             Univ. of New Mexico
                                             Albuquerque, NM 87131
                                             jmarr_at_unm.edu
                                             jmarr_at_flash.net

Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Mon May 03 2010 - 15:37:59 EDT