Helmust, list: haha! I suppose... but sometimes that which is unknown can be labeled "noise" and *noise* is subject to constraints. So, it depends on how clearly constraints are established. But even then, the situation may be nonholonomic and may matter but not definitely examined.
Best, J On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Jerry, Clark, All, > I think, your posts have made the problem of the term "average" clear. Am > I right with understanding it like: "Average" usually suggests a completed > statistical calculation, and statistics is mathematics, therefore exact > logic. But in our context, "average" is not meant for an exact, but an > "imperfect" general, so in our case it is about fuzzy logic with the > remainder (and so the general) being not something clearly defined or > known, but being some sort of suggestion of collusion/agreement, due to > change, and itself subject of the communication- not articulated with > terms, but conveyed by their connotations ? Connotations though donot stick > to terms, but rather are a function of how much the communication partners, > esp. the recipient, know about the history of terms, or whatever they have > had internalized along with them each time they have heard, read, or > thought them before. > Best, > Helmut > > 28. Juni 2016 um 21:07 Uhr > "Jerry Rhee" <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > How about entering into inquiry of a situation, a particular situation. > That situation will have a set of communications associated with it. > But that situation is only one situation of many possible situations. > And what we want to know is how it will play out in the next instance. > That would involve knowing the generals of the situation. > The general of the situation is to know what would be expected in the next > situation > The next situation is not known. It may be a next situation that copies > the present situation perfectly. That would be an average with no > remainder. > But most likely, that next situation will be not exactly the same, that > is, with remainder. > Therefore, what we seek is to know an imperfect general, some "average". > But there is no consonance between the "average" and the next situation. > So, to know the general is also to know the particular; and the general is > not the particular but is defined by particulars. It's not an average but > has quality of average. > > hth, > Jerry R > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Jun 24, 2016, at 3:30 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: >> >> I understand it like "mean", "average" and "normal" are necessary traits >> of any predicate, and there is no predicate but within communication, and >> "mean" is the common aspect of the communicated subject, "average" is the >> agreed-about aspect of it, and "normal" is the standardising aspect. >> >> >> Sorry for the delay answering. Got busy. >> >> While I get the idea your after, I’m not sure it’s really that correct. >> If we’re talking about predicates (rhemes?) then there’s a set of >> communications (broadly defined) tied to it. (Both in terms of past and >> future) There’s a certain shape to those communications that I think >> exceeds terms like average or mode. Which is why I originally objected to >> the term. Average often reduces something fairly complex to a single value >> conceptually which is misleading. >> >> That said, as I argued, I still think there’s something to the word. Just >> not in any statistical sense ultimately even by analogy. >> >> To demonstrate what I’m talking about think a graph like the following. >> (Obviously meant just as analogy - obviously communication of a predicate >> can’t be reduced to a graph like this) >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >
----------------------------- 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 .
