Dear Søren,
Thank you for a positive and constructive note and question. Although I maintain my critique of Peirces tychism and synechism and his concepts of and manipulations of signs and diagrams, I have always seen value in many of his intuitions. I would be glad to consider him a humanist with a semiotic worldview. It takes all kinds . . . I think for participants in this list to say what they mean by reality, exactly for, as you put it, a discussion of the ontology and science behind various informational paradigms, would be very useful. Pedro, what do you think? For me reality is change and stability, being and becoming, appearance and, contradictorially, the reality behind appearance. This is why standard logic doesnt work. Best Seasons Greetings, Joseph P.S. Perhaps a typo, but what is the sense of treading in treading processual concept? _____ From: Søren Brier [mailto:sbr....@cbs.dk] Sent: samedi, 16 décembre 2017 13:28 To: Joseph Brenner; fis Subject: RE: [Fis] Comes the Revolution Dear Joseph This very Peircean of you as The challenge is to reconcile our roles as informational organisms and agents within nature and as stewards of nature. is at the centre of Peirces thinking instead that he uses the treading processual concept of sign instead of information as his basic concept . I know that many call Peirce an objective idealist, although it is a form of realism I am not sure that this concept covers his combination of Tychism and synechism with a semiotic worldview. I think Peirces view is unique. But your mail does put the focus on the importance of discussion the ontology behind the various informational paradigms. What do we mean when we use the term real for instance about Lupascos physical biological contradictorial information? As I understand the term has been pretty important for your view. Best Søren From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner Sent: 16. december 2017 10:15 To: fis <fis@listas.unizar.es> Subject: [Fis] Comes the Revolution Dear Pedro, Dear FISers, I regret that I have difficulty in relating to the current FIS discussion, but that is my problem. I see little progress since the appearance of Lupascos physical biological contradictorial information; Kauffman, Logans biotic and Ulanowicz apophatic information; Deacons Shannon Boltzmann Darwin information; and Wus revolution. Sungchuls intuition of an irreversible triadic relation reflects the power of triads as cognitive attractors, but discussion is blocked by his use of the word irreversible, required by the underlying idealist Peircean structure of his argument. What I would like to see is the foundations of information being discussed in relation to the real problems of society, beyond questionnaires. Some of these led yesterday to a prohibition of the use of seven words including foetus, diversity and science-based from certain U. S. Government documents. I think we need to have in the forefront of our minds the statement made by Floridi in his 2010 book, Information. A Very Short Introduction (which all of you have read, of course): The challenge is to reconcile our roles as informational organisms and agents within nature and as stewards of nature. I believe that such a perspective, placed as a criterion for selection of pertinent concepts, would make our discussions a lot deeper and more relevant. Thank you and best wishes, Joesph <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Garanti sans virus. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> www.avast.com --- L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
