Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem
little to do with 2ns - but with a top-down enforced extreme homogeneity - which I would actually define as 3-1, or Thirdness operating within the iconicity of Firstness. This is tribalism where the population tries to confine its membership to homogeneity-of-type - by, in this case, by top-down enforcement . Basic tribalism is not xenophobia; first - it's a natural kin-based population base where interactions and relationships are governed by shared long-held customs and beliefs and behaviour. This is 3ns - which I would defines as 3-2 or 3-3. Such a homogeneity is stress-reducing and stable. And was/is found in most nations before the era of industrialism. But second - As noted - we cannot get away from 3ns, or homogeneity of Type, because it preserves stability and enables individuals to interact with each other; each member of the group knows the expected beliefs and behaviour. Yet - any population that is growing must also enable itself to adapt and change. That's where 1ns and 2ns or diversity comes into the picture. The extreme top-down repression and rejection of diversity and individualism that is necessary to enforce socialism/communism means that 1ns [freedom] and 2ns [individualism] isn't allowed - and that's why E. Germany rejects 'different people'. In California - there is still a 'homogeneity-of-type' - but it's a different set-up than elsewhere. After all, a mind-set that accepts Hispanics BUT also sets up elite gated communities for the wealthy is as rigid in its beliefs as any other. You will find in these States 'identity blocs' or people living in homogenic communities that are isolated from each other - i.e., they are not inclusive of each other but isolated from each other - and even, quite hostile to each other. Edwina On Mon 25/02/19 12:40 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: An example for this is imho xenophobia: In Germany, xenophobia occurs especially in those areas, in which there are very few strangers or children of them (lack of secondness), e.g. in the eastern ex-GDR- provinces. The same it is in Europe: In the eastern (formerly communist) countries there are few strangers, but they dont want to have refugees or other migrants there. Is it the same in USA, I mean, is it rather in the (mol homoethnic) Midlands, that people are afraid of Latinos, and have therefore elected Trump, and not so much in (more multiethnic) California, New York or Florida? Best, Helmut 25. Februar 2019 um 14:10 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Auke- I wasn't thinking of either; I was referring to Stephen's phrase of 'blind mechanical copying'...which to me, simply means mimesis without mediative thought or input. Even an interaction in 2ns has some 'input' via the direct physical contact. So a pantogram would use 2ns in its interaction. The only point I was trying to make is that the relation has no capacity to NOT carry out mimesis. Rather like a plague of insects! Edwina On Mon 25/02/19 5:14 AM , "Auke van Breemen" a.bree...@chello.nl sent: Edwina, Edwina, I was wondering what meaning you attach to ‘blind copting’. Are you thinking about pantographs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantograph [1]) or mechanical key reproducers like: https://www.grainger.com/product/KABA-ILCO-Key-Duplicator-52HN52 [2] Best, Auke Van: Edwina Taborsky Verzonden: zondag 24 februari 2019 14:53 Aan: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Helmut Raulien' ; Stephen Jarosek CC: 'Auke van Breemen' ; 'Peirce-L' Onderwerp: Re: RE: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem That's why Peirce has the multiple types of categories. Blind copying is both 1-1 and 3-1. Mindful of a common identity involves both 2ns and 3ns. Edwina On Sun 24/02/19 2:57 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: List The more I think about it, the more I think we really need a new term to distinguish from blind, mechanical imitation/mimesis. One that incorporates pragmatism, knowing how to be (Dasein) and the assimilation of values into a logically consistent whole. I place my vote on the word assimitation. sj From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au ] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:37 AM To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Helmut Raulien' Cc: 'Auke van Breemen'; 'Peirce-L' Subject: RE: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem I think we might be committing something of a category error here with regards to imitation and the categories. Both imitation and entropy relate to and depend on all three categories. But imitation and entropy have to do with integration and disintegration, respectively, and not specifically with the categories. Perhaps it might pay to return to the earlier reframing that I suggested, to synthesize the word imitation
RE: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem
List The more I think about it, the more I think we really need a new term to distinguish from blind, mechanical imitation/mimesis. One that incorporates pragmatism, knowing how to be (Dasein) and the assimilation of values into a logically consistent whole. I place my vote on the word assimitation. sj From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au] Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 8:37 AM To: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Helmut Raulien' Cc: 'Auke van Breemen'; 'Peirce-L' Subject: RE: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem I think we might be committing something of a category error here with regards to imitation and the categories. Both imitation and entropy relate to and depend on all three categories. But imitation and entropy have to do with integration and disintegration, respectively, and not specifically with the categories. Perhaps it might pay to return to the earlier reframing that I suggested, to synthesize the word imitation with assuming, to yield assimitation. We need to do this because imitation as I use it is not blind, dumb mechanical imitation, but semiotically informed pragmatism… the knowing how to be… the having to decide what values (signs) matter… the distinction between the known and the unknown. The assuming prefix implies continuity and habituation. In order to be motivated to imitate, you need to assume what’s real and internalize it (firstness), before you can imitate and habituate the real (thirdness). This is Pragmatism 1:001. The assuming part is important, and relates to what Buddhism refers as “seeing the world from the observer’s level”. The reason that I don’t use the word assimitation in these forums is because it’s not a word that you’ll find in the dictionary. But it is definitely the nuance that I imply… when I use the word imitation I mean assimitation. So there’s important elements of firstness and thirdness right there. But there is another important aspect, too. To achieve continuity across time, all participants in any colony, be it a culture of humans or a colony of cells or a swarm of insects, all participants need to come to a mutual agreement on what matters, so that each can assign themselves to their respective divisions of labor. Without that mutual agreement, arrived at by assimitation, there would only be chaos. The categories are still critically important, but assimitation and entropy emphasize different dynamics… unity versus disintegration. The categories are the filter that determines the signs that mind-bodies are motivated to assimitate. For example, humans with female mind-bodies assimitate women, humans with male mind-bodies assimitate men. Assimitation is integral to survival. But assimitation taken to extremes, motivated by fear, self-interest and the need to belong, however, is something very different. We recognize it in the word groupthink. Groupthink is the annihilator of diversity, not assimitation. The matter of unity versus disintegration is important because it relates to the notion of self. To quote Peirce, “The man is the thought.” Similarly, I suggest that “The culture is the thought.” Neurons in a brain are to personality what people in a city are to culture. This would not be possible without assimitation. So to summarize… all three categories are relevant to both assimitation and entropy. Assimitation incorporates all three categories without favor in the interest of unity… the motivations that collective values harness (firstness), the association of shared values to form a logical unity (secondness), and the habituation of assumptions (thirdness). Entropy as the tendency to disorder (reduction of assimitation) impacts on all three categories to dissemble unity… differentiated motivations, disintegration of shared values, and the atomization of assumptions. In other words, assimitation and entropy, while incorporating the categories, actually relate to something quite distinct to the categories… that is, unity vs disintegration. Apologies if this has turned out more long-winded than expected. These are important issues that need to be explored. Thank you Edwina and Helmut for raising them. sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 6:06 PM To: tabor...@primus.ca; Helmut Raulien Cc: 'Auke van Breemen'; 'Peirce-L'; Stephen Jarosek Subject: Re: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem Helmut - my point about the importance of 3ns in reducing entropy had nothing to do, I think [I may be wrong] with Autism in any of its forms [including Asperger's]. I can see, however, that 1sn, in the form of iconicity, reduces 'noise' [aka entropy] in communicative interactions - and perhaps those people with Autism are more sensitive to a wider spectrum of external data and can't filter it easily to isolate and demote the 'noise'. My point is only
RE: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem
I think we might be committing something of a category error here with regards to imitation and the categories. Both imitation and entropy relate to and depend on all three categories. But imitation and entropy have to do with integration and disintegration, respectively, and not specifically with the categories. Perhaps it might pay to return to the earlier reframing that I suggested, to synthesize the word imitation with assuming, to yield assimitation. We need to do this because imitation as I use it is not blind, dumb mechanical imitation, but semiotically informed pragmatism… the knowing how to be… the having to decide what values (signs) matter… the distinction between the known and the unknown. The assuming prefix implies continuity and habituation. In order to be motivated to imitate, you need to assume what’s real and internalize it (firstness), before you can imitate and habituate the real (thirdness). This is Pragmatism 1:001. The assuming part is important, and relates to what Buddhism refers as “seeing the world from the observer’s level”. The reason that I don’t use the word assimitation in these forums is because it’s not a word that you’ll find in the dictionary. But it is definitely the nuance that I imply… when I use the word imitation I mean assimitation. So there’s important elements of firstness and thirdness right there. But there is another important aspect, too. To achieve continuity across time, all participants in any colony, be it a culture of humans or a colony of cells or a swarm of insects, all participants need to come to a mutual agreement on what matters, so that each can assign themselves to their respective divisions of labor. Without that mutual agreement, arrived at by assimitation, there would only be chaos. The categories are still critically important, but assimitation and entropy emphasize different dynamics… unity versus disintegration. The categories are the filter that determines the signs that mind-bodies are motivated to assimitate. For example, humans with female mind-bodies assimitate women, humans with male mind-bodies assimitate men. Assimitation is integral to survival. But assimitation taken to extremes, motivated by fear, self-interest and the need to belong, however, is something very different. We recognize it in the word groupthink. Groupthink is the annihilator of diversity, not assimitation. The matter of unity versus disintegration is important because it relates to the notion of self. To quote Peirce, “The man is the thought.” Similarly, I suggest that “The culture is the thought.” Neurons in a brain are to personality what people in a city are to culture. This would not be possible without assimitation. So to summarize… all three categories are relevant to both assimitation and entropy. Assimitation incorporates all three categories without favor in the interest of unity… the motivations that collective values harness (firstness), the association of shared values to form a logical unity (secondness), and the habituation of assumptions (thirdness). Entropy as the tendency to disorder (reduction of assimitation) impacts on all three categories to dissemble unity… differentiated motivations, disintegration of shared values, and the atomization of assumptions. In other words, assimitation and entropy, while incorporating the categories, actually relate to something quite distinct to the categories… that is, unity vs disintegration. Apologies if this has turned out more long-winded than expected. These are important issues that need to be explored. Thank you Edwina and Helmut for raising them. sj From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 6:06 PM To: tabor...@primus.ca; Helmut Raulien Cc: 'Auke van Breemen'; 'Peirce-L'; Stephen Jarosek Subject: Re: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem Helmut - my point about the importance of 3ns in reducing entropy had nothing to do, I think [I may be wrong] with Autism in any of its forms [including Asperger's]. I can see, however, that 1sn, in the form of iconicity, reduces 'noise' [aka entropy] in communicative interactions - and perhaps those people with Autism are more sensitive to a wider spectrum of external data and can't filter it easily to isolate and demote the 'noise'. My point is only that both 1ns and 3ns have their roles, different roles, in reducing noise/entropy and strengthening information. Edwina On Thu 21/02/19 11:44 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, list, To what you wrote (and with which I agree) I want to add in my own words: Non-autists, in conversations, do a lot of imitation: Affirmation of relations, corrobating what others have said, small-talk, and so on, all that to stabilize the discourse setting, to team-build, maintain a comfortable situation. Autists (Aspergers) don´t do that,
Re: Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Imitation as pragmatism and solution to entropy problem
Helmut - my point about the importance of 3ns in reducing entropy had nothing to do, I think [I may be wrong] with Autism in any of its forms [including Asperger's]. I can see, however, that 1sn, in the form of iconicity, reduces 'noise' [aka entropy] in communicative interactions - and perhaps those people with Autism are more sensitive to a wider spectrum of external data and can't filter it easily to isolate and demote the 'noise'. My point is only that both 1ns and 3ns have their roles, different roles, in reducing noise/entropy and strengthening information. Edwina On Thu 21/02/19 11:44 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, list, To what you wrote (and with which I agree) I want to add in my own words: Non-autists, in conversations, do a lot of imitation: Affirmation of relations, corrobating what others have said, small-talk, and so on, all that to stabilize the discourse setting, to team-build, maintain a comfortable situation. Autists (Aspergers) don´t do that, but focus on the topic only. What they do, I think, is not completely described with the term "generalization". Instead of talking with (others), they rather talk about (something). What is this aboutness? I think, it is, instead of dwelling in relations, making relations objects, ontologizing relations. In semiotic terms, I guess, it is not just "thirdness", but something more specific, like making the sign an object, or something like that... Best, Helmut 21. Februar 2019 um 14:48 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: List I agree that 'imitation addresses the entropy problem' - but, only in part. Imitation functions in a mode of Firstness and although it produces similarity of Type, such a result would decimate the capacity of the species to adapt since it rejects diversity. You'd end up with a frozen Type - a rather mechanical result that is great in machines but devastating in biology and cognition. Instead, I'd add Thirdness as a means of addressing the entropy problem, since it functions to generalize without iconicity. That is, it produces commonalities of Type without also producing iconic clones. The generalities will function to maintain a certain community of interaction but also enable enough individual diversities to permit adaptive capacities. Edwina On Thu 21/02/19 5:27 AM , "Stephen Jarosek" sjaro...@iinet.net.au sent: >"Is there a difference in the way you try to establish contact and teach that depends on the hypothesis you work with?" Absolutely. The dominance of the genocentric narrative predisposes us to assuming that there is something inherently "wrong" with the autistic that needs fixing. A circuitry problem that needs a circuitry fix. But if we re-interpret the autistic's perspective as their way of understanding their world according to their assumptions, then we place ourselves in a position of being better able to negotiate the assumptions that they are making. In much the same way that Thomas Szasz, author of The Myth of Mental Illness, argues that schizophrenics can be negotiated back to reality (if we think it through, schizophrenia is also an imitation deficit... but originating in a dysfunctional family narrative... the imitation deficit manifests itself when the schizophrenic exits the dysfunctional family context and tries to connect with the wider cultural). It is incorrect to assume that the autistic's assumptions are wrong or silly and can be shamed or bullied away. Their assumptions can be very sensible and logical, and need to be understood in the context in which they were arrived at. For example, hyper-rationality... an autistic might dismiss the reading of faces and emotions as irrelevant to their priority for the facts. "Just give me the facts, I don't care what you think or feel." Or, as another example... if a parent fusses obsessively about protecting the child from harm, that child will become more self-focused, and be predisposed to be abnormally hyper-vigilant in contexts that are not that big a deal. The self-focus is particularly significant, because it predisposes the child to defining things to matter that will leave normal people unfazed. Autism is logical... often too logical. A compelling semiotic paradigm explains it nicely. And autism, like schizophrenia, with the right understanding, can be negotiated. Or let's put this another way. Imitation, as pragmatism, also plays an important part in how we define the things that matter. An extreme family context informs the schizophrenic of extreme assumptions that matter and this wires their neuroplastic brain. Things might appear fine within the family context, but when they try to connect with the wider culture, that's when serious problems arise with the cognitive dissonance of the schizophrenic. Rockstar psychologist Jordan Peterson observed that behavioral oddities are detected by the wider culture, the schizophrenic/autistic is excluded by
