Edwina,
You asked for an application to real world problems of the “endless lists and outlines of terminology and rigid definitions of these terms” Here https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf is an example. Fig. 3 is fig. 2 emptied of technical terms. One of the biggest obstacles proved to be to find a way to communicate the model with the participants of the meetings. Fig. 5 is placed in its diagrammatic context if you project the ternary plots on fig. 3. Since in this research I had to deal with responsible agents I decided to devote the bottom plot to esthetics, the left and right to state sign and effect sign respectively and the top one to the morals that ruled the interaction. Note that by taking the Welby correspondence serious, this diagram can be improved by adding several plots, since now at the most we have 7 plots while 10 relations are distinguished. The Peircean theoretical background for this approach is about 60 pages (terminology, secondary literature), so I will not try to summarize that, it probably only would lead to misunderstandings. Just one remark in response to your insistence on explanation. In negotiation cases like this the stakeholders have two meetings. In the first they are asked to score the plot and deliver an explanation for the score. Each explanation is the immediate object of one of the stakeholders of the dynamical object, in this case a pupil. Now, as a rule in situations of serious conflict, the immediate objects will be influenced by the goal of the stake holder, so it is not to be expected that in all cases consensus will be reached as to the background of the situation. So, in a second meeting in disagreement cases the focus is shifted from what do you think the causes are for the situation to “Where do we want to get our mutual scores in the future?” It proves to be the case that in almost all cases although disagreement about the causes keeps existing, about the solution agreement can be reached. Different and contradictory explanations can go together with a plan for action that delivers a solution. Best, Auke van Breemen Van: Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> Verzonden: zondag 17 februari 2019 17:06 Aan: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Peirce-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; 'Gary Richmond' <gary.richm...@gmail.com>; Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> Onderwerp: Re: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] was EGs and Phaneroscopy Auke wrote: RE: I would formulate the goal not as looking for an explanation. For me, such an enterprise ought to aid in getting better immediate objects of the dynamical object that is being studied. Diagrams are excellent means to come to grips with complex systems by supporting and organizing the analysis, although it seems safe to assume they always will lag behind and are incomplete. It is an aid, not an answer. Edwina: But 'getting better immediate objects of the DO' IS a mode of explanation. And I agree that diagrams, as 'images-of-thought' are excellent ANALYTIC AND EXPLANATORY methods. But there's no explanation and no analysis going on here - there's just endless lists and outlines of terminology and rigid definitions of these terms. What's the function of these terms - if they don't explain anything??? On Sun 17/02/19 10:50 AM , "Auke van Breemen" <mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl> a.bree...@chello.nl sent: Edwina, list, E wrote: I agree and am puzzled by the strong effort of some to develop an isolate framework of the work of Peirce - a particular framework based around a purely intellectual outline of interactions and strict terminological definitions which in my opinion both utterly miss the basic point of Peircean semiosis - which is its capacity to analyze and explain the dynamic, adaptive, living infrastructure and processes of the real world. These abstract interactions and definitions have, so far, been unable to explain these processes of the real world. RE: I would formulate the goal not as looking for an explanation. For me, such an enterprise ought to aid in getting better immediate objects of the dynamical object that is being studied. Diagrams are excellent means to come to grips with complex systems by supporting and organizing the analysis, although it seems safe to assume they always will lag behind and are incomplete. It is an aid, not an answer. Auke Van: Edwina Taborsky Verzonden: zondag 17 februari 2019 15:44 Aan: Peirce-L ; Gary Richmond Onderwerp: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] was EGs and Phaneroscopy Gary R wrote: "At first blush, I would tend to agree with you, Auke, that there is no good reason to believe that Peirce "abandoned" "the three-category, ten-Sign taxonomy of 1903." … … But, again, I see Peirce's work as evolving so that, and contra Tom Short for example, I don't see Peirce "abandoning" much at all. And when he finds himself as having clearly been in error, he tends to explicitly state that along with his corrected view (in years past I've offered several examples of this). Peirce is constantly experimenting; but, in my opinion, one needn't take an experiment late in his life as necessarily "abandoning" those undertaken earlier and the principles derived from them. " ------------------- I agree and am puzzled by the strong effort of some to develop an isolate framework of the work of Peirce - a particular framework based around a purely intellectual outline of interactions and strict terminological definitions which in my opinion both utterly miss the basic point of Peircean semiosis - which is its capacity to analyze and explain the dynamic, adaptive, living infrastructure and processes of the real world. These abstract interactions and definitions have, so far, been unable to explain these processes of the real world. Edwina
----------------------------- 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 .
