Auke - thanks for the paper - and I see that you are setting up an
infrastructure for the analysis of a real situation in the real world
- using some facets of the Peircean framework. That is exactly what I
am talking about! The pragmatic function of Peircean semiosis. I
admit that I still find the outline developed [Sarbo's outline]
difficult to comprehend but the fact that it is capable of not only
examining the actual world but in also coming up with solutions to
real problems - is excellent.
Edwiina
On Mon 18/02/19 4:51 AM , "Auke van Breemen" a.bree...@chello.nl
sent:
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/10.1007/978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf
[1] 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
Verzonden: zondag 17 februari 2019 17:06
Aan: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Peirce-L'
; 'Gary Richmond' ; Auke van Breemen
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" a.bree...@chello.nl
[2] 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
Links:
------
[1]
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'a.bree...@chello.nl\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
