Nick, no so much ... ... as reification seems to be unavoidable, and hence I am guilty as charged. Everything is the fault of that pesky verb "to be," as Korzibski warned us. davew
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 1:54 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > Uh-Oh. Dave’s on the case. I am in DEEP trouble here. > > Can I assert that anything is real without implying that some things > are “unreal” and, since we are talking about them, must be mere > matters of the mind. In other words, can one be a monist realist?> > I admit that things aren’t looking good for that position. > > However, for your part, inconsistency-wise in your note you trade on > the notion of the real to challenge realism. You assert that there > is something that is the customs of that tribe, that there is some > that those customs define as man and woman, and that those customs > are so demanding … so real … that they require some men to adopt part > of the role of women to serve other men. Yes I am the pot calling > the kettle black.> > To be honest, I don’t know how we get out of this mess. One solution > I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is > real into a three valued assertion including point of view. If you > come stand where I am standing, you will see what I see. That you can > see what I see from where I stand is The Real.> > I have to admit, seeing the Wittgenstein quote unnerved me. In his > family resemblance model there needs only to be a network of > associations but no constant in that network that anchors it and keeps > it from drifting off.> > *My wife got mad at me because I put my dogs on the coffee table.* > *Why did she get mad?* > *Because she says the nails scratch the table.* > *So, why don’t you trim the nails?* > *Well, I probably would have to have the whole shoe resoled. * > *Why do you call your shoes “dogs”? I thought they were quite > handsome.*> *Well, I call them that because they have been enduring and > reliable > and trustworthy. Best shoes I ever had.*> *Dogged?* > *Right* > *Will you be sorry to see them go when they are worn out?* > *Yeah, doggone it.* > And so on. > > I suspect that there may be a way out of this via Peirce’s sign > theory, but I have never understood Peirce’s sign theory, try as I > might. I am not even sure there is a there there. I.e., not sure > that there is a real thing called Peirce’s Sign Theory.> Nick > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > Clark University > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Prof > David West *Sent:* Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:38 AM *To:* > friam@redfish.com *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction> > > Aww Nick, > > Surely you jest: "Something about the category is real." > > Real? > Real, as in dualist metaphysics? > Or merely real in the sense that there is a group of humans willing to > behave in a manner consistent with a pretend belief that a labeled > category is real?> > About a decade back there were ten states (Oregon's courts recently > struck down this kind of law, so I think Texas is the last remaining > state where this is true) that presenting yourself a "software > engineer" was a minor felony. This despite the fact that universities > in those states issued hundreds if not thousands of diplomas reading > software engineering. The activities typically associated with > 'software engineering', primary among them, programming, were being > practiced for nearly 20 years before the phrase"software engineering" > was first uttered. [[LEO I, first business computer, in 1951 - > software engineering first coined in 1968.]]> > Transgender as a term, let alone a category, is, in the culture most > of the FRIAM list exist within, is less than fifty-years old. [The > Sioux had a term,"berdache," for men that dressed and behaved as women > while providing sexual services to men observing the 7-year post- > partum sex with spouse taboo. And there are hundreds of terms in other > cultures not afflicted with the need to disambiguate absolutely > everything.]> > Can you offer an example of a category where membership criteria is > not completely arbitrary and does not change over time? A category > that is not not constantly 're-defined' in light of new information? > (I am thinking here of biological categories like Linneaus's taxonomy > of categories replaced with DNA-based categories, being questioned > and on the verge of re-definition as we recognize how "muddled" DNA > can be.)> > Can a "category" ever be more than a "metaphor?" > > When it comes to human beings; can categorization ever rise above > being an expression of differentiation between thee and me? It seems > to me that categorization is, mostly, little more than a disguised > expression of xenophobia.> > davew > > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: >> Nick writes: >> >> < Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) > >> >> There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public >> dictionary again. (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my >> Go example.) Doing so constrains what can even be *said*. It >> puts the skeptic in the position of having to deconstruct every >> single term, and thus be a called terms like smartass[1] when they >> force the terms to be used in other contexts where the definition >> doesn’t work. A culture itself is laden with thousands of de- >> facto definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g. >> racist and sexist) expectations. To even to begin to question >> these expectations requires having some power base, or safe space, >> to work from.>> >> In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers >> and that distinguishes them from your category. A discussant of that >> (accused / implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that >> it is not even a credible set. Another discussant says the activity >> of such a group is a skill and if someone lacks it, they could just >> as well gain it while having other co-equal skills too. So there is >> already reason to doubt the categorization you are suggesting.>> >> < You cannot be against categories because you cannot TALK without >> categories. “person” and “dog” are categories. Yes, the thought they >> call up in me is inevitably wrong in some respect. I see you with >> Korgies, but they are actually Irish Wolf Hounds. You cannot bake a >> sentence without breaking some categories, yet the categories endure. >> Something about the category is real. >>> >> Are you claiming that the concept of membership in particular >> biological species is a subjective concept? That I am hijacking the >> meaning of a person or a dog? Really?>> >> < So, if you are not against categorization, per se, and since all >> categories do violence of one sort or another, you must be against >> categories that do more violence than they do good. So, when I >> called you a gazelle, what violence did I do? Would I have done >> better to call you a Wildebeest? Would I be more or less >> disappointed in my expectations had I called you a Springbok? >>> >> For example, it would be better to call the young person in this >> story a girl. That requires having the cognitive flexibility to >> recognize that some terms are dynamic or at least a matter of debate.>> >> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opinion/trans-teen-transition.html>> >> Marcus >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>> >> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove Links: 1. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kellyanne-conway-embarrasses-cnns-jim-acosta-during-heated-exchange
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
