Brother can you spare a penny, or why no I in DME

[marct]

I agree with a great many of your reservations. However, I can also see how treating information as the "property" of "stake-holders" (some New Labour speak there for you!) makes sense. Having a separate department or entity in charge of "Information" would divest those entites with intimate knowledge of their various fields with the ability to use such "knowledge" in a timely, appropriate and contextual manner. OTOH I agree with your proposition that doing so reduces the net or holistic power of "Information" weilded distinctly from D, M or E at the Grand Strategic/Foreign Policy level (of analysis).

Agreed - there are problems either way. I also agree with your next observation....

But I think the very notion of "Information" is what is problematic here not only sematically, but more fundamentally, ontologically. Does "Information" refer to the entire sum total of the knowledge contained in a (learning) organisation like the State or is it a very specific circumscribed region of activity (akin to that allotted to the PWE during the last World War)? The question, though banal to those better informed than myself, really calls into question how we define the relationship between Ideas, Structures and Processes (or Ideational vs Material power). It is an interesting and, IMO, particularly important question given the ideological/ideational component of the Long War which remains a (virtual) theatre of operations that remains under-exploited (at least in the open source media).

I'm one of those people who uses Bateson's definition of information as "a difference that makes a difference". That's actually a very subtle definition when you get down to reading what he meant by it, and it has some very interesting organizational implications. Let me pull a couple of these out.....

Information: "a difference that makes a difference". This is based on three main concepts; stance based epistemology, sensory input and interpretive frameworks.

• stance based epistemology: epistemology is "how do we know what we know", and a stance based epistemology is one that is based in an assumed / implied and (sometimes) stated ontology that defines "differences" and ascribes relative importance to them (i.e. whether or not they make a difference).
• sensory input: think of this as the sum total of sensory input coming in from all sources; the raw "data" out of which people try to make some kind of "sense".
• interpretive frameworks: this is how you parse the sensory input, assign values to it and abstract patterns from it; a form of "data processing" that produces results that are often reflections of the process rather than the data.

Okay, let's play with some of the organizational instantiations of this....

1. Given that different organizations have different foci, different "stances", they will develop different epistemological tools and different ontologies to analyze the same sensory data. At first glance, this would support the diffusion of "information" in a horizontal manner. However, there is a problem with that in that what is communicated between the silos will be value and stance laden "knowledge" rather than "information" or sensory data.

2. In an ideal information environment, and we never really have that , sensory data would be available to all organizations that have a "need to know". This is totally different from making knowledge products available (i.e. the processed sensory data). This would serve two functions. First, it allows analysts to apply their own stance point epistemologies to the "raw data" and, at the same time, apply their own values and stances. I would view this as one of the core functions of an "I" - based organization; collation of all available sensory data. The second function it would serve is as a quality check on the information processing tools in the sense of moving away from "Truth" with a capital T, and towards a set of topological boundaries on processing efficacy (i.e. this type of processing works really well [80%+] in this instance, but only 20% in this other type). This helps to guard against the "if you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail" syndrome.

3. "information", at least in the sense of processed information aka knowledge products, is always aimed at an audience: it is "rhetoric" in the sense of attempting to produce changes in perception and action in the audience in accordance with the design wishes of the producer. This is a freakin' tricky skill set that goes far beyond the simplistic understandings of many IO, PSYOPs and marketing people, mainly because of the ethical requirements inherent in it.

"How", I can hear a mumble, "did ethics get into this?"

Simple, "ethics" in this case has jack to do with IRBs or disciplinary based ethical codes and everything to do with the long term survival and prosperity of the larger group (society) involved in the production of knowledge products. It is, really, the study of 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th order, long term, social and individual effects - think History and Moral Philosophy a la Heinlein.

Unfortunately, you just can't trust an organization of any type to be "ethical" in this manner. Organizational ethics are based on organizational survival and prosperity at best; at worst, they are based on maximizing the resource acquisition of the individuals controlling the organization at the expense of the rest of the organization (think Bernie Madoff).

This means that to give us at least some of the safeguards required, we would need at least three, separate, "I" organizations: one for collating sensory data, one for QCing epistemological tools and ontologies, and one for producing specialized knowledge products at the grand strategic level.

Well, and we might want to add in one or two floating QC check organizations as well, just to try and keep everyone honest and ethical as well . Now I know I'm in fantasy land.....