Jerry R. Thank you. The reference clarifies your meaning.
Other matters are pressing, so, perhaps we can take up this topic at a later time. Cheers jerry > On Feb 15, 2016, at 11:31 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi jerry c, > > 62 pages? Do you mean the Bruner interview or the article? With respect to > the former, my previous response simply contained quotes from the interview. > It's word-searchable. > > The Complexity article is a regular article (10 pages?). > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.21562/full > <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cplx.21562/full> > It starts with the issue of pondering the phenomenon in all its aspects (NA). > But what expert knows all aspects of a wonderful phenomenon that breaks in > upon the habit of the expectation of the inquisiturus? > > > The world is huge, bigger than any computer and bigger than you can imagine. > Different disciplines use different methods, have different standards, and > attend different things. So by what method should we arrive at an > explanation that says, "gotcha"; a unique and final account? One runs into > social problems in the process of knowledge construction and integration. > > > This situated example is useful because it deals with interpreting what the > phenomenon is (1st), what the index should be (2nd) and selecting between > different proposals (3rd). Phi spiral abduction is a single, complete, > defensible and perspicuous example of an inferential creative act but it > gives justifications in uberty and some in security. It questions what you > should accept as evidence of “effective surprise”. It’s measurable and > testable. It questions how we define human effectiveness for this case, > which has “delight and travel, then” for integrating disciplines and > improving economy through education. > > > The many nuances of organizing experience are elaborated in "On Knowing, > Essays for the Left Hand". > > The relations with phyllotaxis are complicated and don’t have to do with > light passing the material inasmuch as the material design, which allows > light to pass optimally but balances that with the property of toughness. > The material is tough and optically clear; not tough and opaque or clear and > brittle. It also is a natural material with the mark of perfection. We can > then talk about truth, perfection and morality in a systematic manner by > situating the knower in context of our current culture… > > > hth, > > J > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:27 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com > <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com>> wrote: > Jerry R., List > > Please provide a bit more guidance. > > The article is 62 pages long. Can you give the page numbers which directly > reference the compelling argument you wish to share with the list? > > The corneal epithelial cells allow light (EM, electro-magnetic radiation) to > pass into the eye. > > At this point I now presume that phi is the 1.62… and that he is referring to > a pattern similar to sunflower seeds on the head, or the swirls on pine cones > and many other plant morphologies. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > >> On Feb 15, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com >> <mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> Hi jerry c, >> >> Thanks for asking! My response is...because Bruner. I assert that it is an >> example of >> >> "...a kind of pragmatics of knowledge acquisition...Not William James's >> "pragmatic," but Peirce's "pragmaticism"... >> >> ..it pits contrary things against each other...context is crucially >> important...illustrates the difference between explanation and >> interpretation...demonstrates our nature to categorize...there is hope for a >> synthesis and reconciliation at the end...growth is what human goodness and >> virtue, or whatever you want to call it, are about...most people aren't even >> aware of the culture... >> >> ...the business of noticeability...develop a perceptual hypothesis about >> "What's that?" that hypothesis comes out of an enormous amount of not very >> explicit knowledge of how things are in the world.... >> >> ...a stimulus is not a stimulus is not a stimulus. That a stimulus is >> something which in effect sets up processes of intentionality, in a >> philosopher's sense. Essentially it has to be mediated." >> >> ~From "Keeping the Conversation Going: An Interview with Jerome Bruner", >> Bradd Shore. >> >> http://moodle.technion.ac.il/pluginfile.php/305777/mod_resource/content/0/Interviewing_Bruner.pdf >> >> <http://moodle.technion.ac.il/pluginfile.php/305777/mod_resource/content/0/Interviewing_Bruner.pdf> >> For example... I've never claimed EM Radiation. What is that and how would >> that generate a phi spiral? >> >> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Jerry LR Chandler >> <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: >> Jerry R, List: >> >> On more than one occasion you have mentioned, >> >>> phi spiral on mouse corneal epithelial cells >> >> What is it about this particular biochemical effect of EM radiation that is >> of interest to you such that you single it out from vastly more perplex >> biochemical effects that are intrinsic nature / natural mathematics? >> >> Cheers >> >> jerry c. >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 15, 2016, at 5:59 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I would say that's a skeptical attitude. One of the reasons given for >>> justifying abduction is to provide a response to skepticism. >>> >>> A response: >>> >>> Firstness: object (that is observed) = phi spiral on mouse corneal >>> epithelial cells >>> >>> Secondness: sign/representamen = FEM model and not Netlogo >>> >>> Thirdness: Immediate interpretant = hierarchical/structural optimization >>> of corneal collagen arrangements >>> >>> Final/Dynamical interpretant = to be determined in futuro, (c.f., contrast >>> between "adaptive mesh refinement and adaptive physics refinement" in >>> Turab Lookman. >>> >>> Argumentation and explication is given in: >>> Promoting convergence: the phi spiral in abduction of mouse corneal >>> behaviors. >>> >>> But really, the argument is >>> if not this, which? >>> >>> Best, >>> J >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net >>> <mailto:jawb...@att.net>> wrote: >>> Thanks, Cary, >>> >>> If I'm being a bit laconic here it's probably because the issues >>> I see looming, from still no more than a cursory glance, are ones >>> that have reared their heads so many times in the past that I can >>> scarcely think of new ways to address them. And I take far less >>> pleasure in repeating myself than the assembled company no doubt >>> thinks I do. >>> >>> Just off the cuff again, many of the frequently recurring issues have >>> to do with ambiguities in the use of those words that stem from “tri-”. >>> One of the first issues I can remember discussing on this List is the >>> differences between a trichotomy, a triadic relation, and any old set >>> of three domains, essences, predicates, or qualities. >>> >>> It's a funny story why “astrology” comes to mind for me at this point. >>> Back in the days when I was heavily invested in the study of C.G. Jung >>> and his school I assimilated mass quantities of arcane material on the >>> archetypes involved in a number of esoteric traditions, East and West, >>> alchemy, astrology, kabbalah, numerology, taoism, and a host of others. >>> Now the one thing that eventually strikes every critically reflective >>> student of these pre-scientific paradigms regarding their function is >>> the way almost any conceptual scheme whatever serves good stead for >>> unifying the manifold of sensuous massa confusa that assaults the >>> bewildered mind, at least, until a better paradigm comes along. >>> >>> So that is the caution I'd be advising here ... >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >>> On 2/15/2016 3:58 PM, Cary Campbell wrote: >>> >>> And an important cautionary note at that. >>> thank you. >>> >>> Cary >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Jon Awbrey" <jawb...@att.net <mailto:jawb...@att.net>> >>> To: "Peirce List" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>> >>> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2016 10:48:25 AM >>> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] How do Peirce's categories best fit the study of the >>> arts? >>> >>> As far as “philosophical astrology” goes, I probably should have >>> made it clearer that I wasn't referring to Adrian's offering under >>> that sign, since I haven't had a chance to do more than glance at it, >>> but I was merely describing a trend I've observed over the last couple >>> of decades. So it's really just a cautionary note. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Jon >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey >>> <http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey> >>> my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ >>> <http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/> >>> inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ >>> <http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/> >>> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA >>> <http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA> >>> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey >>> <http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey> >>> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache >>> <https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, >>> send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu >>> <mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >>> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >>> <http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm> . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >>> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >>> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, >>> send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu >>> <mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >>> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >>> <http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm> . >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, >> send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu >> <mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >> <http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm> . >> >> >> >> > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
