Jerry, List,
I agree that it is puzzling.
1. The nature of the connection I see as the connection between interpreting systems and signs.
2. Ecosystems and niches have already complex relations, while each (simple life form) individual is only interested in its own advantage. It is like Adam Smith´s invisible hand, I guess.
3. In a human, such complex relations may be individuated. A human is able to look for more than her/his own advantage. Maybe other animals too? But simple life forms not, I think.
4. Just an appeal to puzzle on. Discourse ethics is e.g. that a human does not merely look for her/his own advantage in a discussion, but also is interested to keep the discussion going and being fruitful.
So I think, Adam Smith´s theory of the invisible hand is good for ecosystems consisting of simple life forms, but not so much for a human society, and neither a discourse.
Best,
Helmut
03. August 2018 um 23:51 Uhr
"Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>
"Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>
List, Helmut:
I am puzzled by this association.
Again, a very puzzling statement… What is the significance of this claim? Meaning?
----------------------------- 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 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.
What is the nature of the connection?
I am equally puzzled by this assertion.
I think the simplest relations between two systems are hierarchies. With simpler life forms it is all about hierarchies, eating each other, etc.
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.
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,HelmutGesendet: 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:----------------------------- 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 .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> 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 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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
-----------------------------
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 .
