List, Helmut, John: Helmut: You bring in the nature of a musical composer into the semantic tensions between the domains of discourse called "Nominal : Realism”.
This is most appropriate. Because this moves the conversation into the move general puzzle about how various symbol systems interrelate to one another in the minds of competent users of symbol systems. This puzzle grows in perplexity within the minds of individuals who gain competency in additional symbol systems. CSP exhibited multiple symbolic competencies and often interlaced them is highly entangled ways. Often, the reader is left with a mystery in the meaning of the text. I believe, of course, chemical icons often grounded CSP usage of symbolic logics - as in his propositional relations between icons and rhema. Music and chemistry are closely related when viewed from the perspective of acting as a composer. The compositional act is to arrange, from a small but constant set of symbols, a new patterns of symbols that give a form to the reality of music or matter. In both cases the symbols express existential quantifiers. The arrangement of existential quantifiers creates a quantified existential object which can be re-constructed by anyone with the necessary competency, but these competencies are not reciprocal. I give this example to clearly and crisply identity a missing element from CSP thought, a critical philosophical element that I feel many CSP students tend to overlook. Namely, that, in the 21 st Century, competencies in multiple symbol systems are critical scientific communication. The cognitive coherence of thought is a function of the number of symbolic systems incorporated into the image. Reciprocally, the modern individual must consider multiple meanings of symbols when attempting to interpret the what, where, how and why of the meanings of CSP texts. To me, this illustrates the true genesis of his writings. A recent paper by Joseph E. Earley, is vaguely related to this perspective as it seeks to argue for the political necessity for the of emergence of a ’science for survival’. Professor Earley is a longtime student of CSP’s writings. It is a stimulating read. The paper can be downloaded from ResearchGate See Below. A New ‘Idea of Nature’ for Chemical Education Cheers jerry https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257662232_A_New_%27Idea_of_Nature%27_for_Chemical_Education A New ‘Idea of Nature’ for Chemical Education Abstract “The idea of nature” (general model of how things work) that is accepted in a society strongly influences that group’s social and technological progress. Currently, science education concentrates on analysis of stable pre-existing items to minimum constituents. This emphasis is consistent with an outlook that has been widely accepted since the late Renaissance—that characteristics of individuals depend exclusively on the properties of their microscopic components. Much of 19th and 20th century science seems compatible with that now-traditional outlook. But major parts of contemporary science (and fundamental technological problems) deal with open-system dynamic coherences that display novel and important characteristics. These important entities are not adequately treated by the presently-dominant idea of nature. In contrast, the notion of how the world works that contemporary science and current technological practice generate emphasizes synthesis and self-organization of far-from-equilibrium “dissipative structures.” Arguably, eventual success in meeting the severe technological and social challenges occasioned by increasing world population will require general diffusion and appreciation of that newer overall outlook. Chemistry educators have been important in developing and disseminating the earlier worldview—they can and should provide leadership for widespread adoption of the alternative idea of nature. > On Feb 24, 2017, at 3:00 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Jerry, John, List, > It would be interesting to ask somebody who has been born blind. A word is a > string of letters, and a melody a string of sounds. But the perceived thing > of a word is a term, and that is not a string. A melody perceived neither is. > Maybe to call that, what it is, a picture or a diagram is too narrowly told, > and it would be better to call it an icon? Maybe "icon" is not necessarily > bound to a two-dimensional screen- or canvas-like visual substrate. > Like, when a composer has a piece for a whole orchestra in his or her head, > before writing it down, or a mathematician or a philosopher is pondering > about very complex interdependencies, trying to have the whole anticipated > situation in the consciousness in order to regard it, all aspects and all > relations between them are in the consciousness at one time, and form an > icon. This icon, I guess, may have more than two or three dimensions, or it > may even be the elements and interactions that make their own dimensions, > perhaps of a non-integer number, like a fractal. > So I think, that this icon is different from a picture or a diagram, at least > in the common (two-dimensional) understanding of picture or diagram. What is > characteristical for it being an icon, I think, is, that it is a composition > of aspects and their relations, present in the consciousness all at the same > time. > Best, > Helmut > > > 22. Februar 2017 um 21:40 Uhr > "Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> > > > John, List: > > On Feb 16, 2017, at 7:17 AM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za > <mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za>> wrote: > > From talking with colleagues, some say they think only in words and others, > like me, say they think mostly in diagrams or in physical feelings that I > attach no words to (and probably couldn’t in many cases). Although I am > surprised when I find someone who believes they think in words only, I have > little reason to doubt them, as it seems these people also think quite > differently from me. One of the hardest things for me in learning analytic > philosophy (after original training and work in physics) was to think in > words. Dick Cartwright helped me immensely with this. > > Surely it is a psychological issue, if people differ so much in this respect > > In my opinion, this topic of how different individuals “think”, that is, > relate their experiences to their symbolic representations is a critical > issue, a highly critical issue. > > Do readers of this list serve have favorite modes of thinking? > And how closely connected are modes of thinking with modes of explanation? > > If one reads much in the philosophy of science, one finds a wide range of > claims about how we experience the molecular dynamics of brain function. > Usually biased toward one method or another. > > It is a topic that cuts across disciplines. > It cuts across logical forms. > It cuts across visualizations of abstractions. > > I have run an inquiry into this topic with numerous friends and colleagues, > simply asking if they think in words, or pictures or equations, or > “emotions”. > > One of my hypotheses is that philosophers tend to think in words and struggle > with pictures or geometry. Particular in drawing diagrams among arguments. > This severely constrains communications between scientists and philosophers > of science. > > Another hypothesis is that chemists almost always think in terms of pictures > (images) or diagrams. It appears that this skill is essential to represent > relations. > > Mathematicians vary widely in answering my query - it appears to be > correlated to the domain of study. Often, first class mathematicians are > extremely skilled with diagrams but stumble on the simplicity of chemical > diagrams because the logical pre-suppositions do not correspond with the > mathematical notions of relations. > > In any case, I find it useful to try to understand the mode of thinking of > colleagues because it is often useful in facilitating communication and > selecting the mode of explanation. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > ----------------------------- 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 > <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 .
