Dear list,
Stephen said: Could imitation be so important, that this is the reason why we don’t recognize it? Although Peirce read and thought more about Aristotle than about any other man, the Poetry, he knew nothing about. That is, Peirce was not Greek-minded. He then turns to a discussion of representation or imitation (μίμησις). Tragedy is, then, a representation of an action that is heroic and complete and of a certain magnitude.. And since tragedy represents action and is acted by living persons, who must of necessity have certain qualities of character and thought— for it is these which determine the quality of an action; indeed thought and character are the natural causes of any action and it is in virtue of these that all men succeed or fail— it follows then that it is the plot which represents the action. By "plot" I mean here the arrangement of the incidents: "character" is that which determines the quality of the agents, and "thought" appears wherever in the dialogue they put forward an argument or deliver an opinion. (~1450a, Poetics) No doubt, Pragmaticism makes thought ultimately apply to action exclusively - to conceived action. For instance, we all know what he meant by conceived action, here. With best wishes, Jerry R On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 3:24 AM Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote: > Stephen, list, > > > > An interesting question. And an even more interesting approach: But this > time, applying reverse logic, I asked myself… what are the illnesses that > manifest because of a patient’s failure to imitate properly? I followed a > similar strategy and found it most profitable for getting at the finer > details of the semiotic framework to ask how a-typical behavior and > mistakes can be understood semiotically. > > > > The text > https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf > > contains theoretical considerations based on research I did amongst > children that fall out of the schoolsystem in the Netherlands. Since I > started with stories from parents, in the majority of cases the blame was > put on schools not being able to deal with complexities of the child, not > on children showing some sort of criminal behavior. > > > > Two labels were used most for the children that surfaced in the research: > autism and highly gifted. With an autism - highly gifted ratio higher then > 5 - 1. But one has to take into account that the IQ tests of the majority > of autism pupils were above average, most of the time with a score on some > sub-tests considerably higher, then on some other. And that some parents > that called their children highly gifted based themselves on the average > result of the wisc test solely. Disregarding enormous discrepancies on > sub-tests (on a scale length of 19 two lowest score of 5 and two highest of > 18, the remainder, if I remember correctly above 12) and without > recognition of the tri-partite demand for highly gifted performance: inborn > qualities, character of the child and environment. > > > > With autism the situation is even more complex regarding the feats that > show themselves in different cases. Compare the child that does hardly > communicate with the Asperger diagnosed student that follows multiple > studies at the same time with good learning results or for that matter with > the 18 years old who socially communicates on a level comparable in some > respects to a 5 years old, but that at the same time mastered reading by > himself before being 4 years old. > > > > The above is meant to underscore that I don’t profess to provide an > answer, but only raise an alternative explanation. > > > > So, if it is a failure in the ability to mimic (icon based), it is a > failure in some not all domains. This points in the direction of a > background problem with the direction of attention (index based). I regard > it feasible that autism semiotically can be understood by recognizing that > a strong reliance on legisigns (types) and their habitually associated > symbols prevent exploration of the rhematic (combinatoric) possibilities of > new input signs. The adaptability to circumstances is seriously hindered in > this way. And indeed, as you state, it appears as an inability to mimic > social wished behavior. Until, that is, one succeeds in getting attention > for the social problems, in that case a social scientist may be the result. > > > > Best, > > > > Auke van Breemen > > > > > > > > > > *Van:* Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> > *Verzonden:* woensdag 20 februari 2019 7:58 > *Aan:* biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Onderwerp:* [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy > problem > > > > Dear Members, > > [This post carries on from our December thread “Systems theory, DNA > entanglement, agents and semiosis”] > > I've been trying to put an article together, on imitation, for Gatherings > in Biosemiotics 2019 in Moscow. But I don’t think I can put together > anything of substance, in a format that would interest the gathering. > Nonetheless, I remain of the opinion that imitation as a fundamental > principle would definitely have interested Peirce, especially from the > perspective of pragmatism. Perhaps something to explore at the Gathering? > > Google brings up a great many references to imitation, but nothing on > imitation as a fundamental principle. But this time, applying reverse > logic, I asked myself… what are the illnesses that manifest because of a > patient’s failure to imitate properly? I’ve struck pay-dirt, particularly > with reference to autism. Is autism a disease directly attributable to > imitation deficit? Here are some links: > > An examination of the imitation deficit in autism: > > https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-02466-009 > > The Social Role of Imitation in Autism: > > https://depts.washington.edu/isei/iyc/21.2_Ingersoll.pdf > > Does Impaired Social Motivation Drive Imitation Deficits in Children with > Autism Spectrum Disorder? > https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40489-015-0054-9 > > A great many references exist on imitation generally, but nothing on > imitation as a principle... for example: > > https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/personality-traits-contagious-among-children/ > > Here is a nice overview of imitation from Wikipedia: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imitation > > > SUMMARY OF SOME CORE ISSUES RELATING TO IMITATION > > Autism is not a faulty-wiring/dysfunctional genes problem. AUTISM IS AN > IMITATION-PRAGMATISM PROBLEM. It is not a disease, sickness or pathology in > the usual sense of the term, because it is a normal (if dysfunctional) > product of motivation, association and habituation (Peircean categories). > > All these complex theories about psychology, schizophrenia and inheritance > of behavioral traits. What if we were wrong? What if it all amounts to > nothing other than imitation? Behavior inherited across generations not > through genes, but through… imitation. > > Kalevi Kull has published some articles recently on the relationship > between semiosis and choice (e.g., Choosing and learning: Semiosis means > choice). Imitation is one of the ways that organisms make choices. People > choose from culture and culture is imitation. > > Many references can be found on imitation, from Plato and Aristotle to > Piaget and Freud. But never as a fundamental principle. What are we missing? > > > Imitation (assimitation – defined below) should be explored as a > fundamental principle with respect to pragmatism and *knowing how to be*. > Imitation is integral to solving the entropy problem. Hebb’s rule suggests > that neurons imitate… “neurons that fire together wire together”. Heck, > even atoms and molecules imitate… we call it *entanglement*. If Peirce > were alive today, he’d eat this stuff up. > > Imitation (assimitation) is an important topic not just from the > perspective of psychological health, but also from the perspective of > politics, personal well-being and the company we keep. Is it sensible for > the European Union to maintain an open borders policy, with an immigration > policy that ignores the implications of imitation and cultural identity? > > Peirce’s categories are hugely important, but imitation is the overlay > that makes cultural complexity possible. Without imitation as a primal > driver, human culture as we know it, would be non-existent. Imitation is > not an incidental “add-on”. It is a primal foundation and first-cause. It > is the most important solution to the entropy problem, because without > imitation, there would be no colonies or culture. > > Peirce’s categories are the filter through which organisms decide what to > imitate. Humans with female mind-bodies will imitate women, not men. Humans > with male mind-bodies will imitate men, not women. Wolves in the wild will > imitate wolves. Dogs in cities will imitate humans (as far as their canine > mind-bodies predispose them to). Feral infants raised by wolves will > imitate wolves (as far as their human mind-bodies predispose them to). And > so on and on and on. > > Imitation is so very important that even Neo-Darwinians have tried to > incorporate it into their framework. I refer to Richard Dawkins and his > memetic theory. > > Could imitation be so important, that this is the reason why we don’t > recognize it? Something so pervasive, so everywhere. Heck, we can’t keep > imitation out of every single word that carries our accent. Asking a human > to tell us about imitation is like asking a fish to tell us about water. We > have no reference to what it would be like to live without imitation. We > just assume things, without realizing that the assuming is, at its core, a > product of imitation. > > Regards, > Stephen Jarosek > > > > > > *From:* Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au > <sjaro...@iinet.net.au>] > *Sent:* Sunday, December 2, 2018 12:14 PM > *To:* 'Helmut Raulien'; 'biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee' > *Cc:* 'tabor...@primus.ca'; 'peirce-l@list.iupui.edu' > *Subject:* RE: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA > entanglement, agents and semiosis > > > > I agree with you, Helmut, that the concept of culture is extremely > important. More important than the vast, overwhelming majority of people > can hope to understand. I was blessed with having to grow up in a > dysfunctional war-refugee family, and having to make sense of a > hyper-materialistic-hedonistic “fun” culture that believes its own bullshit > (actually, all cultures believe their own bullshit, by definition, but the > most hedonistic-materialistic are the worst… but I digress). Suspended > within a no-man’s land without sensible truths to anchor to, I had to > formulate my own interpretations from scratch. Eastern religions such as > Buddhism often refer to the importance of letting go of assumptions and > definitions, as part of spiritual practice. Far from the leisure of > spiritual practice, this was a condition that was foisted on me as a matter > of survival, it was not a condition that I chose. > > What people don’t realize is the importance of imitation. They don’t get > it, that all that they ever have are assumptions. Imitation is actually the > wrong word… a more precise phrase is “knowing how to be”. It’s about the > replication of behavior… taking your culture’s assumptions for granted. > Maybe we need a new word that synthesizes *assuming* with *imitating*. > *Assimitating* maybe? Yes… for want of a better word, let’s stick with > that… assimitating. And let’s define it in the context of “knowing how to > be”. First of all, one has to choose a niche from their culture to belong > to. Secondly, they have to assimitate and replicate the assumptions of > their chosen niche, to strictly observe its limits. One can move across > niches, and one must choose one to belong to, but limits must be observed. > Niche boundaries do not necessarily appear strict to those observing them, > however, because they assume that this is “just” the way that reality is. > Observing niche boundaries is a fine balancing act between the courage of > individualism and the cowardice of conformity. Courageous observance > (testing the limits) is for leaders, timid observance is for followers. But > no matter what, niche boundaries MUST be observed. For those that fail to > observe said boundaries, or push the boundaries too far with their courage, > and there are sizeable numbers of both, their lot is often > disenfranchisement, invisibility, maybe even psychosis or schizophrenia. > > So what are the boundaries of the culture as a whole? As I’ve mentioned > before in other threads, culture is analogous to a thought. A society of > people is to culture what a brain of neurons is to thought. Metaphors from > chaos theory are informative. Role models as attractors. Boundary > conditions. Initial conditions. A culture comprised of subcultures (niches) > is still a unity. The farthest niches from one another, within a culture, > are still fundamentally united in their sharing of the assumptions that > matter (pragmatism). Assimitation within a culture is integral to > pragmatism, because it’s how people establish the assumptions that matter. > Assumptions are habits… thirdness. > > Initial conditions is a concept that has especially caught my attention of > late. It relates to scaffolding. Meaning is built upon meaning, and the > initial conditions… first experiences… are important because of this. You > can’t just wake up one morning and decide to change your world-view with > the affirmative “this is the first day of the rest of my life.” But it also > goes much deeper than that. I am recognizing this as I walk around the city > streets of my grandfather’s homeland, with the realization “hey, so that’s > where I got that quirky trait from!” (yes, I’m still discovering things > about myself). It begins with mother's nurturing > <https://news.northeastern.edu/2018/08/06/what-if-people-from-different-cultures-and-economic-backgrounds-have-different-brain-wiring/>… > nay, it begins in the womb… there are several examples of the latter > referenced in my paper Pragmatism, Neural Plasticity and Mind-body Unity > <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12304-012-9145-5>. > > Which brings us to your reference to fundamentalist religions, mafias, > etc. That is, groupthink. What is the distinction between groupthink and > healthy culture? One clue lies in the moral individualism of Christianity, > its relationship to courage, and Jesus as a role model (I’m not a > Christian, but I respect why Christianity was effective). Groupthink is a > feature of fear and cowardice, and it sticks like glue, turning people into > unquestioning NPC-bots yearning for social approval and the need to belong. > Particularly relevant to today’s culture of social media. Hedonism and > “fun” cultures are obsessed with needs and, despite their apparent > “freedoms” and indulgences, are contained within strictly self-enforced > limits revolving around social approval. > > Buddhism seems to incorporate a lot of these understandings. I’d just like > to see one thing corrected though. Buddhists assume that all problems stem > from desire. No, desire (firstness?) is downstream from assimitation > (pragmatism). Assimitation, knowing how to be, is where all the problems > begin, because that’s where all choices begin. > > Regards, sj > no woo > > > > *From:* Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de <h.raul...@gmx.de>] > *Sent:* Saturday, December 1, 2018 8:07 PM > *To:* biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee > *Cc:* biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; tabor...@primus.ca; > peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Aw: [biosemiotics:9293] [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems theory, DNA > entanglement, agents and semiosis > > > > > > > > Supplement: I think there is so much more to discuss, esp. about the > concept of culture: Is culture merely tradition and a homeostatic system of > unquestioned habits, or may it also be a culture of culture criticism and > innovation, like a culture of habit-revising and habit-breaking? Or would > this not be "culture" anymore, but something else, an emancipation from > culture? And so on. Anyway, "culture" is merely the produce of an > observation, just secondness, but not something containing thirdness > essentialities such as values or laws. Btw, evolution has not stopped with > the evolution of nervous systems. Causa efficiens is like proto-symbolic > (force, laws... . To say natural laws are conventional, would suggest a > polytheistic idea of gods having had a meeting, haha. So proto). Needs are > indexical, id say, and wishes iconical. Simple nervous animals iconize. In > their evolution there comes indexicality (like pheromons smelling, > pointing, yelling) and symbolicity (like language) again. So I see > individuation (evolution of individuals out of the universe) like a wave: > symbolic(1), indexical(1), iconical(1), indexical(2), symbolical(2), and so > on. Indexical(3) and symbolical(3) would mean, that individuality is handed > over to a supersystem (like the internet), that integrates us, strips our > individuality from us, and organizes us (makes us organs and > no-more-organisms). In our own human interest, we must avoid this. It would > be natural, but not good for us. In our civilized convenience-swing we have > forgotten, that "natural" does not automatically mean "good", but may and > often does mean "hostile". Nature in ancient times was justifiedly regarded > as mostly hostile (sabre-teeth-tigers, snakes, locusts, diseases, > famines...). Now, as nature appears in the form of technology, we dont > recognize it as nature, but it is, and it is pure nature untamed, though > phenomenologically completely different from the common-conceptual (green) > nature we know and have tamed. > > Stephen, Edwina, list, > > I agree, that the term "operationally closed" is too much suggesting an > objectivity, because "operation" sounds like something objective: An > operation is mostly the same operation, seen from any perspective. > > So, with my own terms, i rather say "causally closed", and therefore, > additionally to effect causation and final causation, I propose a secular > kind of example cause (causa exemplaris). > > Causa efficiens I see as force reason, as effect causes are forced by > natural laws. Regarding causa efficiens, no system is causally closed. > > Causa finalis I see as need reason, applying to organisms. Organisms have > needs, and the system border for them and this causally closedness is the > skin or the cell membrane of an organism. > > Causa exemplaris (secular) I see as wish reason or volation reason, > applying to organisms with a nervous system, and any wish is causally > contained within the nervous system, so there is causal closedness too. > > > > With social systems, I think, it is so, that they have an intention of > becoming organism-like, or even human-like. Luhmann speaks of intentional > systems. This intention, I think, is the reason life has emerged and > evolved, as it more or less applies to any CAS, the more complex it is, the > more, and the more complex (like humans) the agents it relies on are, the > more too. > > So the emergence of fundamentalist religions, rigid ideologies, mafias, > and so on, is a natural thing, and the goal of systems theory imho would be > to show this danger, and so to help prevent it. > > So, politically I see value in the dogma, that a social system should be > kept as trivial (non-complex) and transparent as possible, for not being > able to develop causal closedness (systems´ own needs and wishes). This > dogma is in accord with democratic achievements like separation of powers, > civil and human rights, freedom of speech, press, religion..., mobility > (travel, work, and habitation freedom...). This dogma stands in opposition > against right-wing people-think (volkskoerper), compulsory communism, and > excessive (intransparent) dataism. > > Best, Helmut > > 29. November 2018 um 22:02 Uhr > *Von:* "Stephen Jarosek" <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> > > > EDWINA >"Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of > fundamentalism in religion." > > Yes, as per my reply to Helmut, Luhmann's "operationally closed" > perspective seems to be an extension of the objectivist paradigm. > Fundamentalist religion, man-made-in-god's-image, Darwinism, human > exceptionalism, etc, all make assumptions about objective truth where > reality plays out independently of the observer, and I think that this is > the same trap that Luhmann's interpretation falls into. Reminds me of > Richard Dawkins' memetics theory. > > This is a perspective where human behavior is regarded merely as an > impartial medium for the transmission of cultural communications... a very > odd position I must say. They're failing to recognize a most important > point... the relationship between human behavior and culture... the > "knowing how to be", imitation and pragmatism. > > sj > > From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca <tabor...@primus.ca>] > Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2018 7:55 PM > To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Stephen Jarosek > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9287] Systems theory, DNA > entanglement, agents and semiosis > > I think this is an important distinction. > Do societies function by ideology or by interactional relations with their > environment and others? > Ideologies can be 'operationally closed' - that's the goal of > fundamentalism in religion. This is where " the cultural narrative exists > as a kind of overlay, independently of the humans engaging it" that Stephen > refers to. > Cultural anthropology believes in the determinism of the cultural > narrative. > However, I think that a society, as a CAS [complex adaptive system] > operates as an interactional system - and that includes its operating > narrative. Granted - it can take generations for a cultural narrative to > change - but - it does. > Edwina > > > > > > On Thu 29/11/18 4:19 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: > Dear members, > > In a recent debate on systems theory in another forum, I explored with > others, the specific issues informing Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) and > autopoiesis. There seems to be two dominant, competing narratives playing > out: > > 1) AUTOPOIESIS AS OPERATIONALLY CLOSED: > > The dynamics of autopoiesis are regarded as relational, not externally > caused. According to Wikipedia, Niklas Luhman regarded social systems as > "... operationally closed in that while they use and rely on resources from > their environment, those resources do not become part of the systems' > operation. Both thought and digestion are important preconditions for > communication, but neither appears in communication as such. Note, however, > that Maturana argued very vocally that this appropriation of autopoietic > theory was conceptually unsound, as it presupposes the autonomy of > communications from actual persons. That is, by describing social systems > as > operationally closed networks of communications, Luhmann (according to > Maturana) ignores the fact that communications presuppose human > communicators." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann > > Echoing Maturana's concern in my own words... in an operationally closed > culture, the cultural narrative exists as a kind of overlay, independently > of the humans engaging it. > > 2) AUTOPOIESIS AS SEMIOSIS BY AN AGENT: > > This is our position. We acknowledge the role of the agent, semiosis, and > the choices that the agent makes from its Umwelt. Where the former regards > an "operationally closed" system as an overlay independent of the agents > making choices from it, our own perspective incorporates agents > inextricably > as part of the system. For us, therefore, pragmatism plays a central role. > In the "operationally closed" system, by contrast, it would seem that > pragmatism plays a minimal role, if any. Lest there remain any doubt, > Peirce's "The man is the thought" clearly designates man as an agent. > Preaching here to the converted, we require no further elaboration. > > DNA ENTANGLEMENT = AUTONOMOUS AGENTS > > What can we do to entice the "operationally closed" CAS crowd to move over > to our side? If we can get others to appreciate the importance of including > agents within their narrative, it may compel them to better appreciate the > potential of the semiotic paradigm. > > The case for focusing on the agent might be made more compelling by > incorporating DNA entanglement into our narrative. DNA entanglement > addresses two critical problems... entropy and the binding problem. In this > regard, with respect to the binding problem, we are further compelled to > focus on the observer as the locus of control. A living observer comprised > of cells bound together by entangled DNA is clearly an agent making choices > from it Umwelt. It cannot be any other way. Why does DNA entanglement > deserve to be taken seriously? My paper, Quantum Semiotics, provides an > outline: > > http://journals.sfu.ca/jnonlocality/index.php/jnonlocality/article/view/64/6 > 3 > > By including DNA entanglement within our thesis, we are in a more > compelling > position to conclude that it is the agent (consciousness) that is first > cause. It is the agent that makes the choices and assimilates its > experiences into its being, its unity. > > WHY HAS DNA ENTANGLEMENT NOT ENTERED THE MAINSTREAM VERNACULAR? > > There exists much circumstantial evidence in support of DNA entanglement, > and more and more researchers are increasingly reviewing correlations > between separated neural networks. It is my contention that there is only > one mechanism that might explain these correlations - DNA entanglement. > > So what's the holdup? There can only be one thing. Woo. Professionals > terrified of having their valuable work assigned the woo label won't dare > utter the words "DNA entanglement" in polite company. It is unfortunate > that > in this era of rampaging political correctness, with people being > unpersoned > for holding unapproved opinions, we are policing ourselves into silence. As > I am independent of Academia, though, I have nothing to lose, and so I'm so > I'm going to say it loud and proud: > > DNA entanglement. It's a thing. > > Regards, > Stephen Jarosek > no woo > > REFERENCES - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR DNA ENTANGLEMENT: > > Apostolou, T.; Kintzios, S. Cell-to-Cell Communication: Evidence of > Near-Instantaneous Distant, Non-Chemical Communication between Neuronal > (Human SK-N-SH Neuroblastoma) Cells by Using a Novel Bioelectric Biosensor > (JCS Volume 25, Numbers 9-10, 2018, pp. 62-74(13)) > > https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/00000025/f0020009/art > 00002 > > Crew, B. (2018). This is the first detailed footage of DNA replication, and > it wasn't what we expected. Sciencealert.com: > https://www.sciencealert.com/dna-replication-first-footage-unexpected > > Greentechnique. (2011, January 15). Cleve Backster - Primary Perception > (beginning at 344 seconds): > https://youtu.be/V7V6D33HGt8?t=5m44s > > Pizzi, R., Fantasia, A., Gelain, F., Rosetti, D., & Vescovi, A. (2004). > Non-local correlations between separated neural networks (E. Donkor, A. > Pirick, & H. Brandt, Eds.). Quantum Information and Computation > (Proceedings > of SPIE), 5436(II), 107-117. > http://spie.org/Publications/Proceedings/Paper/10.1117/12.540785 > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
