List, Helmut: > On Aug 3, 2018, at 4:26 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > List, > I think this topic is semiotically very relevant, and shows the connection > between semiotics and systems theory, with us as systems.
I am puzzled by this association. What is the nature of the connection? > I think the simplest relations between two systems are hierarchies. With > simpler life forms it is all about hierarchies, eating each other, etc. I am equally puzzled by this assertion. Would you agree that the biology is basically about reproduction over generations and relationships between organisms and the surrounding niches? > Humans being able to create a non-hierarchical discourse situation is a great > achievement of genetic and cultural evolution. Again, a very puzzling statement… What is the significance of this claim? Meaning? > I think it is a good idea to analyse non-hierarchical complex > relations-of-hierarchies, and develop a discourse ethics based on Peirce and > systems theories. Finally, this is the most puzzling of all the sentences in the message. To me, it reads as a self-contradictory assertion. Cheers Jerry > Best, > Helmut > > Gesendet: Freitag, 03. August 2018 um 03:13 Uhr > Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > An: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Betreff: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recommendation: In email notes, avoid the word > 'you' > Edwina, List: > > The principle that no one can make someone else feel any particular way does > not "imply that people are almost in a state of self-sufficient isolation." > It merely implies that each of us has a measure of self-control, as Peirce > clearly affirmed. No one else has control over my feelings and responses, > although others' behavior can and does influence how I am likely to feel or > respond in a given situation. > > Likewise, taking responsibility for those feelings and responses does not > "mean that whatever another person argues/says has no effect." It merely > means that the Dynamic Interpretant of an utterance is not completely > dictated by its Utterer. The Interpreter also plays a role, as evidenced by > the fact that the exact same statement can have very different effects on > different people. In Martin Luther's words, we can and should "put the best > construction on everything." > > If someone were to tell me, "What you suggest is a ridiculous brain-dead > analysis," I probably would indeed be upset initially; but how I subsequently > dealt with that emotion would be up to me. As Alan Jacobs recommends in his > recent book, How to Think, in such circumstances one should "take five > minutes," rather than saying or doing anything right away. Then deliberately > choose a course of action, rather than just reacting in the heat of the > moment. > > In summary, what I am proposing is that List members conscientiously > cultivate both specific habits of action (how we say things), as John S. is > advocating, and specific habits of interpretation (how we take things), as > Gary F. is advocating. Conveniently, Peirce had a lot to say about how to go > about this sort of thing; as I recently posted (again), "Logic [i.e., > semeiotic] may be defined as the science of the laws of the stable > establishment of beliefs [i.e., habits]" (CP 3.429; 1896). > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 7:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca > <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote: > Jon, list > > 1] But is an assertive approach the best way to function within a scientific > research community? That is, if it's the case that " Another principle of > assertiveness is that no one can make someone else feel any particular way, > or respond in any particular way" doesn't this imply that people are almost > in a state of self-sufficient isolation? > > 2]And, if it's the case that " Instead, each of us should take full > responsibility for our own feelings and responses" - doesn't this mean that > whatever another person argues/says has no effect? > > As an example, if someone says to me: "What you suggest is a ridiculous > brain-dead analysis" - should my feeling upset about this [and I hope I WOULD > feel upset; I'm not a psychopath who is indifferent to others]….should I > really take full i.e., singular responsibility for my upset feeling? > Shouldn't the person who said it to me in the first place, share this > responsibility? That is - is it up to me alone to 'not take offense'? > > I don't think that we, as a species, can function well without a sensitivity > to how we affect others, such that we even change our tone, our words, our > body language, when we interact with different people - because we do want to > 'make' them feel in a particular way. I treat a two-year old quite > differently from a graduate student and differently from a colleague. > > I think that John Sowa's recommendations are a constructive agenda - and I'll > try to follow them. > > Edwina > > On Thu 02/08/18 7:52 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com > <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com> sent: > > List: > > Employing "I" messages, rather than "you" messages, is a staple of > assertiveness training. It is an effective rhetorical strategy grounded in > psychology. I think that it is especially important to be careful about > attributing views, sentiments, or states to someone else that he or she did > not actually express; John's example of "you are confused" is in this > category. > > At the same time, whether a particular statement is insulting is--at least to > some extent--in the eye of the beholder. Another principle of assertiveness > is that no one can make someone else feel any particular way, or respond in > any particular way. Instead, each of us should take full responsibility for > our own feelings and responses. > > Consequently, we would all do well to heed both pieces of advice that have > been offered in this thread--avoid "you" when possible, and choose not to > take offense. I try to follow both of these practices when posting here, > but as the record shows, I am not always successful. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>----------------------------- 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 .
