Supplement:
Is there a crisis of systems theory, like I am feeling? If so, I have the hunch, that the reason for that is the blunt "Network" metaphor, whose wide use blocks the inquiry about structures, scales, continuity, processes, and so on. I feel, that the "Network" concept is normative in the way that it makes us think in a technocratic, instrumentalizing, neoliberalistic and digital way, and is wrong. But I want to exclude from this pre-critical feeling the use of the word "Network" by Norbert Elias, who, I think, uses it more elaborate, processural, and not so bluntly.
List,
I guess it might help to talk about time (and space) scales now, and about systems hierarchies with the sytems having different time (and space) scales. I think that synechism is connected to (Peircean) monism.
Eg. the dualism of mind and matter: Matter is effete mind. "Effete" is an unusual word for me (non-native speaker of English language), I think it means "weakened" or "exhausted". I would say, if something, some piece of mind, is exhausted, it goes slower, changes its time scale towards very slow.
With this slowliness, situations are conserved longer in their attractive states , meaning: Attractors (chaos theory) have a longer time of persistence, and it looks for faster (non-effete mind), as if there were discrete states countable with integer numbers.
I guess, that attractors are not like a trap, like once they occur, they remain forever, but that they remain only as long as a certain situation exists for them to keep them up.
So I think, that the obvious existence of discretenesses or integer numbers in nature is not a sign for dualism, but for the interaction of systems, positioned differently regarding their hierarchy towards each other, and their different time and space scales.
How all this is working and interacting exactly, would be interesting to argue about and to find out. I have the impression, that Peirce did not care much about this scale-problem, so I think that interdisciplinarity would be good. I think, that Stanley N. Salthe (Hi Stan!) might have something to contribute, and anybody occupied with systems theory, but I have the impression, that there nowadays is not much about systems theory, except when it is about psychological family-therapy or computing, which both I am not interested in. I rather am interested in natural sciences, like physics and biology (Why is the first plural, BTW, and the second singular? Non-native-speakers-question) and sociology.
Best,
Helmut
04. März 2017 um 18:21 Uhr
"Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:
"Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:
List, John:
----------------------------- 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 .
On Mar 3, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:I am having a hard time following your thought process here,
Yes, you certainly do.
And, I can identify several conjectures why this is the case.
At the top of the list of conjectures are the modes of explanation of abstract symbols.
Several symbolic competencies are reflected in CSP’s rumination, not just the usual literacy of alphabetic and perhaps mathematical symbols.
These multiple competencies and rule systems (legi-signs?) become entangled at the level of Bocovichian points.
At some point, one “must fish or cut bait” - that is, the mathematics of the continuous can not be the same as the mathematics of the discrete. Nor can the mathematics of the discrete become the mathematics of the continuous.
The challenge to “modes of description” and “modes of explanation” that is common to all disciplines (including theology, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, the cognitive sciences and logic) must take this distinction into account.
CSP refers to this as “representamen”. Unfortunately, he omitted (as far as I am aware) the case where the sin-signs generated multiple symbol systems with different logics for each.
(For a review of recent advances in logic, see; http://www.jyb-logic.org/Universallogic13-bsl-sept.pdf,
13 QUESTIONS ABOUT UNIVERSAL LOGIC.
In other words, I am simply saying that the thought processes of the scientific community (and my thought processes) did not stop on April 19, 1914.
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 .
