I cleaned this up a bit. inity/ … <https://t.co/zNcZlPcEJM> amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 8:07 AM Stephen Curtiss Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am more beyond theology and the notion that any of this can be discussed > in past terms. My own sense is that we live in a semiotic sea whose signs > are the information that we are all involved in sending out just by > thinking. I think Peirce saw this and in fact made it at least possible to > infer. > The Trinity less inconsequential as a creedal artifact and much moreso as > the triad of Source-Creator-God, Christ (Avatars unified who remain > exemplars), and us (all life in materiality) is simply how things can be > described. It is a simple inference that we are energy and that it is > intelligent and that all are involved as James Dean once cried out. > Christ Consciousness infuses the highest realm which we are able to access. > Peirce will be understood as the one who integrated things to the point > that the binary distinction between metaphysics and material measurements > disappeared. > > Cheers, S > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 1:45 PM Mary Libertin <mary.liber...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I agree and appreciate your work. Peirce does deserve to be an icon. >> Showing forth the world as triadic would work! I notice you are into >> theology. I’ve been thinking of the analogy of triadic thinking to the >> trinity. There was/is a debate about the trinity, as to whether the spirit >> came from the father, or from the father and son (leaving out the spirit as >> being in any way precedent or more fundamental.) This argument caused the >> great schism between Roman Catholics and the Orthodox Religion. We seem to >> be in a rut similar to that. I see the spirit as mother, which has roots in >> some religions; but, nevertheless, the game of who comes first is just >> that. All three are interrelated in very complex ways, and the triad cannot >> be diluted down to two dyads. The analogy can be found in Peirce, I think >> in “the Neglected Argument for the reality of God,” God is like the sign >> Sign. The whole triangle is a sign. Or sometimes one of the three angles is >> labeled sign. Between these two ways of thinking there is an oscillation. >> Until someone unifies the three persons and GOD, is father, son, and Holy >> Spirit. Notice Father is not father. God is not god, Mother is not spirit. >> (Spirit is not spirit?) I love how Peirce refuses to let it go, how in >> semiotics, although we say there us 1n, 2n, 3n, they are not sequential or >> hierarchal until one draws a distinction. >> >> On Apr 4, 2019, at 12:12 PM, Stephen Curtiss Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> I appreciate that more than I can say as I have pretty much managed to >> not really connect. I am run of the mill liberal arts which I think is lots >> of "educated" folk. I draw blanks when things seem too complex to pass what >> I think of as the C. P. Snow test. No offence intended, just apples and >> oranges and not enough Peirce Popularizers or emenders to participate in >> what I think is the actual victory of his triadic POV. He certainly >> deserves to be an Icon. >> >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 11:21 AM Mary Libertin <mary.liber...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Stephen, >>> >>> You’re absolutely right! Nominalism is binary thinking. >>> >>> I wonder why Peirce never used that phrase in relation to his definition >>> of nominalism? Yesterday I looked through all of the uses of “nominalism” >>> in the electronic collection of Peirce’s Collected Works, and Published >>> articles, with that in mind. I was wondering why he was so loath to being >>> that clear. No matter what, I checked to confirm my memory of Peirce’s use >>> of the term. )Here I am unconsciously using an outdated term while >>> consciously arguing about using technical terms usefully. ( >>> >>> Thanks Stephen! >>> >>> Mary >>> >>> On Apr 4, 2019, at 10:47 AM, Stephen Curtiss Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I find it helpful to use "binary" as an adjective when nominalism is >>> meant. I write mainly for popular consumption. Mainly on Twitter. The >>> reason is that more understand it in context. Nominalism is less >>> accessable. We live in a binary world beset by what inhibits and rejects >>> triadic thinking. As time passes binary will denote a rejected form of >>> looking at things consciously. I am responding to your note about the >>> pervasiveness of nominalism. >>> >>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:32 AM Mary Libertin <mary.liber...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> List, >>>> >>>> P-listers, >>>> >>>> Hi! The discussion below about Stamper’s Ladder brings to mind an >>>> excellent article “Levels of Representation”: >>>> https://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/levels.html. I am working on the space of >>>> representation and the space of representionality (related to *levels* >>>> of representation) in understanding fiction (and understanding, God knows, >>>> reality). I find this article interesting. I’m astounded by the levels one >>>> must continually become aware of to be semiotically literate. More >>>> generally, I’m struck by the depths of nominalism in our world, a subject >>>> worth tying into the current one. >>>> >>>> In relation to the more recent posts about terminology, I’m reminded of >>>> Peirce’s own tenacious efforts to differentiate his ideas, scrupulously >>>> conscious of past and future use of terms. I’m thinking of Peirce's >>>> redefining the term *pragmatism* to *pragmaticism* to separate his >>>> ideas from others, especially FCS Schiller’s works on pragmatism which >>>> attacked Peirce. See FCS Schiller’s collection of essays *Humanism*, a >>>> word he used to differentiate his meaning from others, especially >>>> Peirce’s. Any use of a word acquires its meaning from context and the >>>> direction the meaning will ultimately tend towards. The creation of the >>>> present context of the meaning of a word involves both theory and praxis. >>>> It is the relationship between the two, theory and praxis, that is more >>>> important than either one alone. Peirce used the term “pragmatism” to >>>> inquire about its connection to science, biology, physics, chemistry, logic >>>> and the list goes on. And he applied his ideas in these fields to help him >>>> understand the field in relation to his ideas about the theoretical >>>> “pragmatism”. So, in a sense, both sides of the current debate on >>>> Peirce-list are “right.” Understanding theory and understanding its use are >>>> related. I actually understand James Joyce’s writing because of Peirce. >>>> They both were encyclopedists. The reverse is true too. I wonder if it is >>>> even possible to understand the meaning of a word without knowing how and >>>> when it could be used to greatest affect. >>>> >>>> I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks! >>>> >>>> Mary Libertin >>>> >>>> On Apr 3, 2019, at 12:38 AM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Auke, list, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your response. >>>> >>>> First, as regards Stamper's ladder, I don't know if there exists a >>>> diagram which would show the modifications and augmentations which you've >>>> suggested have been made to the ladder since he devised it, but I think it >>>> might be helpful for the list to look at the basic diagram: >>>> >>>> <image.png> >>>> >>>> Perhaps this (or some other diagram which you might supply) could serve >>>> as the basis for forum members getting a handle on those enhancements that >>>> you outlined in an earlier message, especially should we get further into >>>> this topic. >>>> >>>> Although I have probably said enough about the current disagreements >>>> regarding views of semeiotics, and while I would like for us to get back to >>>> substantive matters, I feel I need to say a word about this: >>>> >>>> AvB: 1. One was intensely scrutinizing the text (Jon, John). 2. The >>>> other reads it at an arm’s length (Tom Short, with the first involved, he >>>> did a great job in his books on understanding Peirce, and remained >>>> critical), 3. with the third the book on her lap, while see looked around >>>> (Edwina, Dan). >>>> >>>> >>>> I had earlier drafted a segment of this post which took up each of the >>>> individuals mentioned above as I thought your outline over-simplified the >>>> complexity of the interests of each of the scholars named. But I decided >>>> that it was probably best that I only say for now that the thinkers you >>>> mentioned above cannot, in my opinion, be so neatly pigeon-holed. As I see >>>> it, their interests extend *at least* over the three approaches to >>>> Peirce scholarship which you have chosen to characterize. In my view none >>>> of them can be so compartmentalized. And further, does anyone here (or >>>> elsewhere) have the expertise, or for that matter, the right to categorize >>>> these individual's approaches or interests in this way? I would only say >>>> that there is no doubt in my mind--and I think I know enough of their >>>> scholarly work to say this--that they are all extremely intelligent and >>>> extraordinarily complex thinkers; and that is the *only way* I would >>>> care to characterize them publicly. >>>> >>>> Thank you for the more detailed explication of your earlier example. It >>>> completely clarifies it as "an expression of “inconsistencies >>>> aris[ing] at the level of axioms” at the social level and that that it >>>> is usually possible to "accept lower-level facts without creating any >>>> conflict.” I continue to find this analysis of interoperability at the >>>> social level of considerable interest and would be eager to learn more. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Gary Richmond* >>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>>> *Communication Studies* >>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 4:33 AM Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Gary, List, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Regarding Stampers Ladder you wrote: my interests have changed >>>>> considerably in the baker's dozen of years since I wrote that paper and … >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> RE: The ‘might’ in ‘you might be interested’ wasn’t meant as ‘you >>>>> should’, but as a polite alternative to ‘may’. >>>>> >>>>> My aim was not to get you reading Stamper, but to show that from >>>>> practical need somebody extended the amount of layers in such a way that >>>>> somebody interested in nagging about the technical terms of semiotics and >>>>> their relations, could recognize this as fitting with the Peircean scheme >>>>> and decided to try to put the idea further in such a way that all sign >>>>> aspects are covered. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This example seemed especially fit since, lately, I see some quit >>>>> fundamentalist attitude on this list regarding the interpretation of >>>>> Peircean semiotics. If you look at the foundation of those attempt, it >>>>> strikes me that the one seems to originate in turning speculative grammar >>>>> to the end all of the enterprise and the other the semantic layer. If we >>>>> do >>>>> this when interested in information systems (as well man as an information >>>>> system as in building them for organizations) then not only such >>>>> enterprises fall short in coming to terms with the subject matter. They >>>>> also tend to block the way of inquiry. Each sign aspect provides another >>>>> perspective on the problem and each aspect has its own telos. The question >>>>> ought not to be ‘who is right according to Peirce’, but how do we connect >>>>> the different perspectives? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When a student, I bought a worn reproduction because I wanted the >>>>> frame it was put in. When home I hung it at the wall and soon decided to >>>>> keep it because it showed three reformation ladies reading the holy bible. >>>>> 1. One was intensely scrutinizing the text (Jon, John). 2. The other reads >>>>> it at an arm’s length (Tom Short, with the first involved, he did a great >>>>> job in his books on understanding Peirce, and remained critical), 3. with >>>>> the third the book on her lap, while see looked around (Edwina, Dan). >>>>> >>>>> It nicely expresses the way one should deal with the philosopher one >>>>> has a particular interest in, as a safeguard for an uncritical attitude. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> With regard to the example. >>>>> >>>>> Let’s take the DSM classification of autism. The label z is deemed >>>>> applicable if x out of x+y characteristics is applicable, where >>>>> x+y=characteristics of z. Let x be the characteristics pertaining to >>>>> information processing and let y be the characteristics pertaining to >>>>> empathy and social behavior. >>>>> >>>>> Now a parent and a school disagree regarding a child/pupil having z. >>>>> If we now turn the attention to each of the characteristics, it will prove >>>>> the case that on that score, there is less divergence in opinion. On top >>>>> of >>>>> that, in many cases the characteristics that remain contested prove to >>>>> result from the context the child is in, i.e. home for the parents and >>>>> school for the authorities. For me it is an expression of “inconsistencies >>>>> arise at the level of axioms” at the social level and “they can >>>>> usually accept lower-level facts without creating any conflict”. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hope this is more clearly stated. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Auke van Breemen >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Van:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>>> *Verzonden:* maandag 1 april 2019 21:11 >>>>> *Aan:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>>>> *Onderwerp:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce .. and its >>>>> importance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Auke, List, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for reading my paper on interoperability. It would appear >>>>> that a great deal of work has been done in that area since I presented >>>>> that >>>>> paper as the keynote at a workshop developed by Aldo de Moor, Harry >>>>> Delugach, and Simon Polovina at ICCS 2006. While interoperability >>>>> continues >>>>> to be, it seems to me, a vexing problem, it has appeared to me that clear >>>>> advances have been made in the past decade. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I read some of Ronald Stamper's work years ago, but I must admit that >>>>> my interests have changed considerably in the baker's dozen of years since >>>>> I wrote that paper and, the following year, one on enterprise and >>>>> inter-enterprise systems architecture: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic_architectonic.pdf >>>>> _ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You quoted me quoting John Sowa from the interoperability paper: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> JS: The point is the UF is primarily intended as a framework for >>>>> communication among potentially (or actually) incompatible systems. The >>>>> major inconsistencies arise at the level of axioms, which none of these >>>>> systems would accept from one another. But they can usually accept >>>>> lower-level facts without creating any conflict. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And commenting on "[systems] can usually accept lower-level facts >>>>> without creating any conflict" wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> AvB: It is supported in my research at the social level. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I would be interested in hearing more about this (your single example >>>>> wasn't entirely clear to me). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Gary Richmond* >>>>> >>>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>>>> >>>>> *Communication Studies* >>>>> >>>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:49 AM Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Gary, Jon, Ronald, List, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gary, >>>>> >>>>> I read your >>>>> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/InteropArisbe.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You distinguish three levels of interoperability. The Syntactic, >>>>> semantic and pragmatic levels. You might be interested in Ronald Stamper >>>>> and his semiotic ladder. He also started with three levels, but actually >>>>> building information systems and designing methods to do that, he found >>>>> the >>>>> need to extend the amount of levels with three, the technical, empirical >>>>> and after your three the social. I can match them with my semiotic >>>>> KiF-Framework. Then still three pigeon holes of the nine sign aspects are >>>>> left open. I hold it to be the index, the legisign and the symbol >>>>> position. >>>>> This makes sense because in the KiF-model they are either the connection >>>>> (index) of state and effect or the type pertaining to the effect and the >>>>> meaning attached to it in regular settings. This gives rise to two >>>>> questions of interoperability: horizontal and vertical. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If we follow the categorical scheme the semantical level is, as you >>>>> also state in your trikon a second (relative to its first and third). We >>>>> may assume a twofold distinction behind it. Lets venture as hypothesis >>>>> that >>>>> Sowa’s work is the firstness of that dyad. I would suggest looking at >>>>> Stampers ontology Charts for the secondness of that dyad. The reason being >>>>> that Stamper includes actors in his scheme, introduces time and looks at >>>>> meanings as affordances. It seems to bridge with the pragmatic level and >>>>> it >>>>> has with the introduction of ‘person’ and ‘role’ the ability to align with >>>>> my social layer framework for educational settings. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Note that your Trikon differs in directionality for different roles in >>>>> IS design. The project leader serves the pragmatic level, the information >>>>> analyst the semantical and the programmer the technical. Your use of the >>>>> Trikons enable to sort out the directionalities and the order they ought >>>>> to >>>>> be put in. My use enables an inspection of the views on that matter in >>>>> actual practice in terms of more or less. So, together we have a kind of >>>>> control system if we design Trikons for the other levels too. In essence I >>>>> think we need six. State is a sign with three relata and the effect is a >>>>> sign with three relata of which one enters the interpretation process of >>>>> the other depending on the goal that reigns the process. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is an interesting remark you cite from Sowa: >>>>> >>>>> The point is the UF is primarily intended as a framework for >>>>> communication among potentially (or actually) incompatible systems. The >>>>> major inconsistencies arise at the level of axioms, which none of these >>>>> systems would accept from one another. But they can usually accept >>>>> lower-level facts without creating any conflict. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is supported in my research at the social level. A mother with >>>>> Hindu background typed her sun as an ‘old soul’, a common name for >>>>> children >>>>> with certain a-typical traits in het culture. The officials talk DSM and >>>>> look for terms like autism or attention deficit. At the same time, when >>>>> asked they agreed on multiple characteristics, only diverging for context >>>>> sensitive responses (Home vs school). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Still, I had to deal with the Platonic (mayeutica) element inherent in >>>>> the mothers world view as it is opposed to the far more Deweyan didactics >>>>> of pofessionals. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Auke >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Van:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>>> *Verzonden:* zaterdag 30 maart 2019 18:35 >>>>> *Aan:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>>>> *Onderwerp:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce .. and its >>>>> importance >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Auke, Edwina, Dan, List, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Auke wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> AvB: I shifted from the production of objects made in arts to personal >>>>> development and from there to interactions. Resulting in the application >>>>> of >>>>> a semiotically grounded method for conflict resolving in an educational >>>>> setting, >>>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf >>>>> (it >>>>> is of wider use, I extended the model and used it in a commercial domain). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I find your semiotically grounded work for conflict resolution in and >>>>> beyond educational settings of considerable interest. Much of my college >>>>> teaching in a philosophy department, of especially creative and critical >>>>> thinking, centered on the application of Peirce's semeiotic (and >>>>> especially >>>>> his pragmatism) to conflict resolution, problem solving, etc. But in >>>>> workshops and papers I have also addressed its application to other >>>>> matters, for example, interoperability in the use of internet technology >>>>> here: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/InteropArisbe.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My friend and colleague, Aldo de Moor (with whom I co-authored a paper >>>>> along with Mary Keeler), also used Peircean principles in developing his >>>>> consulting firm, CommunitySense >>>>> >>>>> https://www.communitysense.nl >>>>> >>>>> many of these principles gleaned from his years of attending John >>>>> Sowa's/Mary Keeler's ICCS conferences, listening to, reading and writing >>>>> papers, giving and auditing talks, and organizing and participating in >>>>> seminars either about or related to Peirce's work. For a time he was quite >>>>> actively using Sowa's Conceptual Graphs (built on Peirce's EGs) in his >>>>> work. With all this in mind, I'm going to forward your paper to him, Auke. >>>>> You continued: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> AvB: For example, everybody reading the Springer *Quality of service* text >>>>> will see that I am inspired by Gary R’s Trikonic, which I class as >>>>> theoretical. Without that work I would never have imagined to try to >>>>> incorporate it in my application. It proved gold because it enables me to >>>>> have participants in my method explicate their position in such a way that >>>>> contestants in a conflict can compare their differences in a systematic >>>>> way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm gratified that my Trikonic inspired your work. Occasionally I'll >>>>> receive an off-list note or link telling me how that work is being used in >>>>> a context I'd never imagined it being used in (although tricategorial >>>>> thinking by its very nature ought to be, in my view, applicable to any >>>>> number of fields). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, I agree with you, Edwina, and Dan that, as Dan wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> DE: Always the point was to use his ideas to do empirical work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And as Auke somewhat metaphorically wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> AvB: ". . .in the end, it must be the fruit of application that proves >>>>> the worth of the tree. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Or as Edwina put it, Peirce's pragmatism concerns: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ET: ". . .the powerful functionality of his analytic framework when >>>>> used in examining and explaining our real world, its operation and our >>>>> interactions with that world. : >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yet, as I see it, there remains considerable work yet remaining for >>>>> developing and explicating Peirce's theories and this includes refining, >>>>> as >>>>> it were, with an eye especially to its pragmatic use, his terminology. >>>>> After all, as Auke just wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> AvB: . . .one pins down an conceptual infrastructure with the help of >>>>> ‘terms and their relationship’. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And, while I found Dan's overgrown beanstalk metaphor spot on, I would >>>>> tend to strongly agree with Auke's conclusion regarding Peirce's >>>>> terminology. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> AvB: . . . I like to be able to inspect that framework as to its >>>>> build [I take this to mean, "how it's constructed"?] and for that I find >>>>> the technical term distinctions that Peirce made very inspiring. / / / The >>>>> focus is on the understanding of semiosis, the tools are the technical >>>>> terms. Its good to keep inspecting and comparing ones tools. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As I've repeatedly said in this forum over the years, it seems to me >>>>> that there is no good reason why work in one should exclude work in the >>>>> other; that is, there is no reason why the development of theory (I, for >>>>> example, am very interested in the possible development of Peirce's >>>>> phenomenology and technical terminology will most certainly play a part in >>>>> that) and practice (as suggested by the examples Auke, Dan, and Edwina >>>>> offered) can't operate side by side if not quite hand in hand. In my >>>>> opinion hostility to one or ignoring one are equally unwise because >>>>> finally >>>>> unbalanced. While it may be necessary to concentrate on one and not the >>>>> other at any given time (and this is something Peirce strongly suggested >>>>> and was, indeed, his practice), in my view both are essential. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Gary >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Gary Richmond* >>>>> >>>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>>>> >>>>> *Communication Studies* >>>>> >>>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:43 AM Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dan, Edwina, List, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Dan and Edwina with an *however* in favor of work on the >>>>> semiotic engine and its make up in the technical terms that shy off the >>>>> general public. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since I started analyzing design processes of artist in the late >>>>> 80’íes I tried to combine an empirical bend with an interest of modelling >>>>> the situation graphically in technical semiotical terms. The general >>>>> scheme >>>>> Dan and Edwina point to (and as I understand it in my own undoubtedly very >>>>> personal way, which itself evolves along the way) functioning as the hard >>>>> core of the research program. I shifted from the production of objects >>>>> made in arts to personal development and from there to interactions. >>>>> Resulting in the application of a semiotically grounded method for >>>>> conflict >>>>> resolving in an educational setting, >>>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf >>>>> (it is of wider use, I extended the model and used it in a commercial >>>>> domain). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However: This I could only do because I always tried to model semiosis >>>>> in semiotic terms. And, because others on this list, and elsewhere (Sarbo, >>>>> Farkas), were trying to come to grips with the technical side of >>>>> semiotics. >>>>> >>>>> For example, everybody reading the Springer *Quality of service* text >>>>> will see that I am inspired by Gary R’s Trikonic, which I class as >>>>> theoretical. Without that work I would never have imagined to try to >>>>> incorporate it in my application. It proved gold because it enables me to >>>>> have participants in my method explicate their position in such a way that >>>>> contestants in a conflict can compare their differences in a systematic >>>>> way. I leave out the valuable influence of many others on this list. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It must be an interplay between both interests. It is also important >>>>> to try to model the process of interpretation in semiotic terms for its >>>>> own >>>>> sake. The key to that in my take is showing how the sign aspects are >>>>> related to the interpretants, Peirce distinguishes, when a sign is >>>>> inscribed in a sheet in its actual state. In that respect he left an >>>>> interesting, still incomplete and as to its constituent pieces debated >>>>> puzzle. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But of course, in the end, it must be the fruit of application that >>>>> proves the worth of the tree. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best Auke >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Van:* Dan Everett <danleveret...@gmail.com> >>>>> *Verzonden:* zaterdag 30 maart 2019 14:55 >>>>> *Aan:* tabor...@primus.ca >>>>> *CC:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu >>>>> *Onderwerp:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree with Edwina . Peirce himself left strong indications that some >>>>> of his finer terminological distinctions were likely to be unimportant for >>>>> research purposes, which was his main concern. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Always the point was to use his ideas to do empirical work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The kind of article that Edwina links to is a beautiful example of the >>>>> kind of thing that would have really interested Peirce. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think of Peircean terminology as a beanstalk he planted. It grew far >>>>> too large in many ways. But the science, the math, the logic, these are >>>>> the >>>>> things of true lasting importance. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPad >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 30, 2019, at 9:45 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In my view, the basis of Peirce is not which term is to be used when >>>>> and where - although I acknowledge that such a descriptive outline can be >>>>> fascinating for some - but my view is that Peirce is really 'all about >>>>> pragmatics'; i.e., the powerful functionality of his analytic framework >>>>> when used in examining and explaining our real world, its operation and >>>>> our >>>>> interactions with that world. This analytic framework - which functions >>>>> regardless of the terms used - is, to me, 'the basic Peirce' - and can be >>>>> of great insight in many disciplines. >>>>> >>>>> Here is an example. My minimal computer skills didn't allow me to >>>>> copy more than once - so, I've left out the vital title and authors. It's >>>>> in the online journal Entropy. The link below should get anyone interested >>>>> to the site. My point is NOT to open discussion on the actual article - >>>>> but >>>>> to show how the Peircean analytic framework, which to me, consists of that >>>>> dynamic triad [O-R-I] with its subsets and the powerful three categories - >>>>> is the basic pragmatic infrastructure of our entire world. >>>>> >>>>> The article below is about information dynamics - and - note the terms >>>>> of 'majority-logic decoding' [another term for 3ns???], and 'single unit >>>>> transformations' [2ns???]...and entropy [1ns??] ….And non-equilibrium >>>>> dynamics [the triadic semiosic process??] >>>>> >>>>> ""We investigate the performance of majority-logic decoding in both >>>>> reversible and finite-time information erasure processes performed on >>>>> macroscopic bits that contain N microscopic binary units. While we >>>>> show that for reversible erasure protocols single-unit transformations are >>>>> more efficient than majority-logic decoding, the latter is found to offer >>>>> several benefits for finite-time erasure processes: Both the minimal >>>>> erasure duration for a given erasure and the minimal erasure error for a >>>>> given erasure duration are reduced, if compared to a single unit. >>>>> Remarkably, the majority-logic decoding is also more efficient in both the >>>>> small-erasure error and fast-erasure region. These benefits are also >>>>> preserved under the optimal erasure protocol that minimizes the dissipated >>>>> heat. Our work therefore shows that majority-logic decoding can lift the >>>>> precision-speed-efficiency trade-off in information erasure processes. >>>>> View >>>>> Full-Text <https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/3/284/htm> >>>>> >>>>> *Keywords: *finite-time information erasure; majority-logic decoding; >>>>> nonequilibrium thermodynamics finite-time information erasure >>>>> <https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=finite-time%20information%20erasure>; >>>>> majority-logic >>>>> decoding <https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=majority-logic%20decoding>; >>>>> nonequilibrium >>>>> thermodynamics >>>>> <https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=nonequilibrium%20thermodynamics> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 . >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> 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 .
