*5.9. Progress in Communication Theory*

We have indicated in Section 5 some aspects of recent rapid developments in the science, logic and philosophy of information in relation to meaning. In particular, we have mentioned the dialectical convergence of science and philosophy under the influence of the philosophy of information. The convergence is no more functional than in the field of communication. We have also mentioned briefly their origin in the last Century in the science and technology of communication and their enormous increase with the advent of computer technology. Progress in communications is a part of the current digital ontological paradigm identified by Capurro in numerous publications in which, also, attention is called to their social consequences [102].

From our standpoint, progress in communication is by no means univocal. In the case of natural languages, for example, the basis for human communication, their evolution in the direction of increased e fficiency and reduced redundancy is clear. The latter is o ff-set in many instances by context, as in Mandarin Chinese, where a single tone-symbol may have a dozen meanings, but this may be an exception. That such developments are accompanied by an impoverishment in the quality and depth of language and communication is also clear. Routine errors in English are made and become codified in defining media, e.g., CNN. The loss of redundancy in individual languages is paralleled by the disappearance of entire 'native' language groups. The destruction of the languages of indigenous populations employed was part of the political strategy of the Catholic Church in Mesoamerica, the conquest of the North American continent by Europeans and is part of that strategy in Asia and Africa today. The society is impoverished by such losses as much as it is by the loss of animal species, such as the moa8, literally eaten to death in Australia in the 19th Century.

Under these circumstances one can only welcome movements in the direction of the saving of surviving languages and the recomplexification of our own. Such a process cannot be formal and artificial, but we propose what is essentially a third case of recovery, by the reintroduction of references to classical portions of our cultural heritage, not classicism for its own sake. We are thus proposing a rehumanization and de-digitalization of communication theory which is not intended to eliminate digital perspectives but to provide some balance to them. Capurro correctly points to the prevalence of a 'Digital Ontology' today [101], but this does not mean that a non-digital ontology is not active, admittedly to a lesser degree.
