[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Title: Message
Gary,
Well, it seems we are going
in different directions at the moment.
- You are involved in
studying semiosis along lines of sign types, while I am wondering how to
understand the process by which a sign that offers itself and is capable
of producing a logical interpretant, actually produces it. To which end I take
recourse to the sign aspects.
- You read in the Sarbo
Farkas model a maltreatment of the sign aspectsby raising them to sign on
their own. While I read in it a far from finished project that tries to connect
thesign as it presents itself with the logical interpretant by laying bare
the semiotically relevant moments that can be discerned. Which is not to say
that all moments are traversed in concrete cases. Familiarity and expectation
economize the proces in the majority of cases. Compare Peirce's question
whether in the sequence: socrates is human, so, socratesis mortal the
major is actually thought.
For the remainder just
someremarks.
The sequence
was:
Auke van Breemen
wrote:I expect that we will end upwith
something at least of the order of the Welby classification. Then 9aspects
will not be sufficient.
[GR] But the so-called Welby classification involves the
consideration of the role of the interpretant in semeiotic moving
theoretically somewhat far beyond the 10-adic classification of [year]
Although there are areas in which we are in disagreement, Bernard Morand and
I have agreed on the list that the 10-adic diagram of x is based on just
three of the 10 types discussed in the Welby classification--that is, the
trichotomic exposition in the body of the letter.
{AvB] Agreed, I think
thisis more or less settled. The 'more' being applicable to the
containment of the3 relations(1902-04) in the 10 (Welby). The 'less'
being related to whether or not the 3 do involveconsideration of the
role of the interpretant.
GR
I'm not sure what you mean by "the 3" here. However, after
presenting the his fourth (of ten) trichotomy, "the one which I most
frequently use," namely, the icon/index/symbol, Peirce explicitly notes that
"All the remaining six tracheotomies have to do with the Interpretants" (EP2,
489) [One should perhaps observe in passing that the three trichotomies used
to generate the 10-adic classification are, besides #4 already mentioned, #1,
here called potisign/actisign/famisign or, alternatively, tinge or
tone/token/type (the earlier qualisign/sinsign/legisign) and #9,
"Seme/like a simple sign" "Pheme/with Antecedent and
Consequent" "Delome/with Antecedent/ Consequent and
principle of sequence." (this the earlier rheme or term/proposition/argument
trichotomy), at least this is how Bernard and I saw the correspondence when we
discussed it on list.]
The 3 refers to the 3
relations (1902 -04).The second relation of those three involve a
contribution of the interpretant. It was not clear to me whether you were
suggestingthat only the Welby classification involves a role of the
interpretant while I was thinking about:
CP 2.92or Symbol,
which is a sign which owes its significant virtue to a character which can only
be realized by the aid of its Interpretant.
Since you obviously were thinking
about the arrangement of relations in the Welby classification in which the
icon, index, symbol triad is forth.So probably this is a case that
illustrates the need for some agreement regarding terms.
In the following passage
you deleted an essential element out of my 28-3-2006 response. So I will retrace
the context below the passage.
Quote with element
deleted starts{AvB quoting GR quoting AvB] Now your
suggestion considering sign types "according to the categories" You
divided matters thus.
AvB- possibilities of signs -
aspects of signs- embodied signs - 10 sign types- real or
operative signs - actual thought, argument, 1 sign
type
[GR] . . . The conflation of the two (9 10) is exactly what I
find in error in Sarbo and tend to rant about to anyone who'll listen (and
I would like to suggest that even a tetradist, Ben Udell, makes the
distinction and so avoids conflation the two.)
Gary, you misunderstand
me. Here I am refering to the types not
the aspects. Since this is of influence for the remainder of our
exchangeI will stop here and only make one more remark about the
proto-sign model.GR: But
your triadic division above includes not just types but also "possibilities of
signs - aspects of signs." Again, my sense is that we need a Peircean
technical semeiotic terminology to discuss matters semeiotic, and that using
the same or similar language in consideration of these "aspects of
signs" or "proto-signs" or "pre-signs" (or whatever they may be called in the
future) will tend to confuse semeiotic analysis and impede the
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Title: Message Gary, You write: Sarbo/Farkas do refer to their proto-signs as "aspects of signs I suggested the use of 'aspects of signs' for the proto-sign article. Precisely in order to get clear that not the triadically determined sign types are meant. A matter that was troubling him much after his talks with you and in my estimation was the reason for writing the article. But he did not follow suit, he called it aspects (of meaning). http://www.cs.ru.nl/research/reports/full/ICIS-R05031.pdfpage 5 Peircean proto-signs: The problematic character of knowledge, as a process, is due to the inherent property of signification that signs must be embedded. According to Peirce, there are ten types of such embeddings, the properties of which can be distinguished in nine classes (cf. Peirces decadic and nonadic classifications of signs). More specifically, a sign of the decadic classification can be characterized (analytically), as a compatible combination of nonadic types. Such types, interpreted as parameters, are what I call an aspect (of meaning). Note that 'such types' refers to what he calls the nonadic types just before. You write: I too have enjoyed our discussions and benefited from them. You can imagine that it is quite disturbing for me to read that you thinking that I'm "sneaking" things in and "contaminating" your thought. Again, it was certainly not my intention to do anything of the sort and I'm sorry that you feel this way.-- I had betterphrased it thus: by the addition...sneaks in andas a consequence my sayings get contaminated. From pretty early onI got the impression that some unresolved issue troubled our correspondence. Since you constantly returned to work that is not that hard to attack for a (peircean) philosopher. I for no moment had the feeling that it was an intentional act aimed at me.I apologize for having raised that impression. But I have to add that it is not nice to be confronted with attributions that go contrary to what I think. Auke --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Auke, Thank you for providing the link to Sarbo's Proto-Signs piece. http://www.cs.ru.nl/research/reports/full/ICIS-R05031.pdf This will certainly be very helpful for those who are interested in examining Sarbo's 9-adic proto-semiotic I had betterphrased it thus: by the addition...sneaks in andas a consequence my sayings get contaminated. To be quite honest, Auke, I still do not see exactly what the issue you got all fired up about is. I had written: GR: All occasions of signs: 1ns, possibilities of signs - aspects of signs (in the language of Sarbo/Farkas) | real or operative signs - actual thought, argument (the kind of sign semeiotic deals with) embodied signs - 10 sign types You say: "by the addition. . . [something] sneaks in and as a consequence my saying gets contaminated." But Auke, my error was simply that knowing the term "aspects" occured in the "Peircean Proto-Signs" which has Sarbo as author (I had forgotten that this paper wasn't co-authored with Farkas), that he uses it to refer to the 9 Boolean generated dyadic "proto-signs" (which he gives Peircean semeiotic names to although they function quite differently), and not being aware that you had contributed the notion of "aspects" to that paper (especially since Sarbo and I had also discussed "aspects" in email correspondence but with no mention of you (I didn't know anything of your role in relation to that paper), and further not knowing that you distinguished "aspects of signs" from "aspects of meanings" (indeed, that yourefer by the former what Sarbo refered to in the paper by the latter), etc. This was a harmless and--I would think that any fair-minded person would say--understandable "addition." But perhaps I'm missing some deeper issue or point. You continued <> From pretty early onI got the impression that some unresolved issue troubled our correspondence. Since you constantly returned to work that is not that hard to attack for a (peircean) philosopher. I'm afraid I have no idea what is meant here. What "unresolved issue"? What "work that is not that hard to attack for a (peircean philosopher"? Perhaps you will clarify these points. You concluded. I for no moment had the feeling that it was an intentional act aimed at me.I apologize for having raised that impression. But I have to add that it is not nice to be confronted with attributions that go contrary to what I think Well, again, I had no idea I was not being "nice" that what I'd written caused you to feel "confronted with attibutions that go contrary" to what you think. Ah, well, perhaps enough for now of what seems to me like a tempest in a teapot. Gary . --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Auke,
Another inter-paragraphical response, then we can both get back to
work towards our deadlines :-)
Auke van Breemen wrote:
<>[GR] But the so-called Welby classification involves the
consideration of the role of the interpretant in semeiotic moving
theoretically somewhat far beyond the 10-adic classification of [year]
Although there are areas in which we are in disagreement, Bernard
Morand and I have agreed on the list that the 10-adic diagram of x is
based on just three of the 10 types discussed in the Welby
classification--that is, the trichotomic exposition in the body of the
letter.
{AvB]
Agreed, I think thisis more or less settled. The 'more' being
applicable to the containment of the3 relations(1902-04) in the 10
(Welby). The 'less' being related to whether or not the 3 do
involveconsideration of the role of the interpretant.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the 3" here. However, after presenting
the his fourth (of ten) trichotomy, "the one which I most frequently
use," namely, the icon/index/symbol, Peirce explicitly notes that "All
the remaining six tracheotomies have to do with the Interpretants"
(EP2, 489) [One should perhaps observe in passing that the three
trichotomies used to generate the 10-adic classification are, besides
#4 already mentioned, #1, here called potisign/actisign/famisign or,
alternatively, tinge or tone/token/type (the earlier
qualisign/sinsign/legisign) and #9, "Seme/like a simple sign"
"Pheme/with Antecedent and Consequent" "Delome/with Antecedent/
Consequent and principle of sequence." (this the earlier rheme or
term/proposition/argument trichotomy), at least this is how Bernard and
I saw the correspondence when we discussed it on list.]
[AvB
quoting GR] 1st, again, I say
"sign classes" based on Peirce's remark just quoted: "The three
trichotomies of Signs result together in dividing Signs into TEN
CLASSES OF SIGNS." CP .2.254:
I obviously
did not understand you. To be as clear as possible about this point: do
you state:
The 10
classes of signs do represent themselves embodied signs? I was thinking
along different lines. I would say that: "The rhematic symbolic
legisign 'lines' at the end of the last sentence" does represent an
embodied sign. And that the classes of signsrepresent conditions that
have to be fulfilled if something is going to be classed as an embodied
sign. But I agree that: "if we meet with something that is classifyable
as belonging to one of the 10 sign classes, then we are dealing with an
embodied sign" will do. My response probably was triggered by the use
of 'themselves' andafterwards directed in the wrong direction.
Well certainly a classification schema is just that. My point was
merely that not the 9-adic but only the 10-adic grouping points to
signs which may possibly be embodied, real, that is triadic signs with
a trichotomic relationship to the object/the sign itself/the
interpreter. Of course they need to be actually embodied in
some semiosis to function as signs in any real or virtual world.
<>[AvB]As
I see it we agree on the judgement that it is not right to treat the
sign aspects as signs in themselves.
Again, Sarbo has treated the 9 "sign aspects" (Sarbo's _expression_) "as
signs in themselves" in his fairy tales, Bambi, and other such
analyses. In my opinion, this was a grave error. It is true that your
"Natural Grammar" paper does not attempt such semeiotic analyses and I
applaud this recent restraint. I am glad that Janos--whom, btw, you
know I think is a terrific delightful fellow whom I like
personally very much--here refrains from attempting to do semeiotic
with his "sign aspects."
[AvB] I
consciously abstracted from both the nonagons and the proto-sign model.
They belong to a class of attempts and may be both wrong headed without
making the attempt to fruitfully employ the sign aspects in some model
of sign recognition impossible. Especially with regard to cognition
science it might be worthwhile to use the aspects. As for instance when
we have to deal with mental disorders like dyslexia, faceblindness,
non-verbal language disorders. If we assume the development of a full
fledged sign (one of the 10 or 66 classes) to be a process, the
impairements may prove to occur at specific stages in those
processes.It is also feasable that a process account of sign
recognition in semiotic terms gives some direction tobrain research.
Emphasizing that activation patterns are more important than brain
regions being activated.
Having read most (all?) of Sarbo's papers on this of the past 5 or so
years, I cannot say that I have seen substantial progress in moving
forward with the "sign aspects" even and especially in relation to
cognitive science. Perhaps your involvement in the project will
catalyze it towards accomplishing something in that direction. As for
the matter of its having implications for the consideration of "mental
disorders like dyslexia" etc., I personally think these are likely to
be
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Title: Message Gary R, Thanks for your reply. GR: As a supplement to the URL Joe supplied for "knowledge management" I'd like to add several others, all from Wikipedia. First, I would like to suggest that ICCS and CGs are more closely associated with "knowledge representation" than with "knowledge management" while the two over-lap to some extent.--- By now we have: knowledge management knowledge reperesentation Gary, could you give me a clue about how conceptualization fits in? I mean with this the way in which we individually or collaboratively make our vague and indistinct ideas clear. So, not the facilitation of collaborative progress or the social side, but the conceptual side. The Nonagon may serve as an example of what I mean. if knowledge representation overlaps with knowledge management, it is tempting to assume that it also overlaps with conceptualization. Best, Auke --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Auke van Breemen wrote: Message By now we have: knowledge management knowledge reperesentation Gary, could you give me a clue about how conceptualization fits in? I mean with this the way in which we individually or collaboratively make our vague and indistinct ideas clear. So, not the facilitation of collaborative progress or the social side, but the conceptual side. The Nonagon may serve as an example of what I mean. if knowledge representation overlaps with knowledge management, it is tempting to assume that it also overlaps with conceptualization. Auke, In your previous post, after quoting Peirce to the effect that "the essential function of a sign is to render inefficient relations efficient, -- not to set them into action, but to establish a habit or general rule whereby they will act on occasion." you wrote: [AvB] . . .the construction of the sign involves the execution of self control. I think it is here that Claudio's Nonagons may play a healty role. In EE one puts the vaguely defined 'knowledge system'. . . a nonagon would establishes the habit of addressing the different aspects that have to be taken into account. But I agree withe skeptics that the way in which to proceed with the Nonagons is [not? GR] althougether[altogether? GR] clear. It mediates between what is and what might become only in a very loose way. I have found aspects of Claudio Guerri's work very attractive from the design standpoint, and it is also quite possible that for some the nonagon offers "hints and suggestions" as to important habits we ought to establish, especially "the habit of addressing the different aspects that have to be taken into account" in, for example, design projects. But I would have to include myself--and this will hardly come as news to Claudio since he and I have discussed this both on and off list--among those who find his nonagonic relationships all too "vaguely defined" so that it is "not altogether clear" to me exactly how to use the nonagon in such projects. Perhaps that may even prove to be part of its power--that it only offers "hints and suggestions." (Btw, I believe I have made it clear here and elsewhere that except for these reservations about the nonagon, I have the deepest respect for Claudio and his brilliantly creative design sensibilities and work generally.) My biggest complaint with 9-adic structures concerns their being used at all to provide a theoretical basis for anything except Peirce's 10-adic classification of signs. I have not been convinced of the theoretical soundness of basing other structures on Peirce's 9-adic arrangement. Again, 3x3x3 seems to me inappropriately applied to anything but the construction of the 10-adic classification of signs. The 9-adic is but a preliminary albeit necessary abstraction which Peirce devises to analyze the trichotomic semeiotic relations possible categorially combinatorially as regards the three essential components of sign activity as he conceives it--3 possible for the object, 3 for the sign itself, 3 for the interpretant. Peirce himself quite explicitly states this just before his presentation of the classification: 2.254. The three trichotomies of Signs result together in dividing Signs into TEN CLASSES OF SIGNS, of which numerous subdivisions have to be considered. The ten classes are as follows: My position continues to be that 3x3x3 is illegitimately commandeered for other philosophical purposes (except, perhaps, in the vague "suggestive" way already mentioned, a value which it apparently has for some). I have objected to this conscripting of the 9-adic for other purposes. See, for example my 2005 ICCS paper http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm where I comment that a complete trichotomic analysis . . . <>. . .strongly supports the notion that the 9-adic diagram presents only the types of relationships possible for yet to be embodied sign classes. In a word, the nine sign "parametric" choicesdo not themselves represent embodied signs, whereas the ten classes do.[GR, Outline of trikonic, p 6] You further comment that the nonagon as you've analyzed it [AvB] . . .would probably need other methods as a complement like maybe the trikons of Gary R or the proto signs of Sarbo and Farkas or still something I do not know of. As some on the list may know, I have also found Sarbo's "proto-signs" problematic in part for reasons not unrelated to the above analysis.. In a recent paper, "Natural Grammar," Sarbo comments that "We gladly acknowledge that the term proto-sign has been suggested by Gary Richmond," but does not note that I coined this term while expressing exasperation at their referring to the elements of their own dyadic and, in fact, wholly Boolean structure as if they were actual, embodied signs. As I see it, there is also something quite arbitrary in the way in which Sarbo and Farkas attempt to connect the (selected) Boolean operators in their
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Gary, Thanks for your extensive answer. It is more then I asked for but the surplus does address an important issue. I think it comes down to whether it is correct to hold, as you do, that the 9 aspects can not be useful for anything except for establishing the 10 types of signs. As in: GR: My biggest complaint with 9-adic structures concerns their being used at all to provide a theoretical basis for anything except Peirce's 10-adic classification of signs. I have not been convinced of the theoretical soundness of basing other structures on Peirce's 9-adic arrangement. -- Let me start by stating that I disagree with respect to the limitation of the usefulness of the sign aspects to the establishment of sign types. But I have to add immediately that I expect that we will end up with something at least of the order of the Welby classification. Then 9 aspects will not be sufficient. So what I am going to defend is the use of triadically derived sign aspects for other purposes then typecasting. It is not a defense of the sufficiency of the 9 aspects. GR wrote: . . .strongly supports the notion that the 9-adic diagram presents only the types of relationships possible for yet to be embodied sign classes. In a word, the nine sign parametric choices do not themselves represent embodied signs, whereas the ten classes do.[GR, Outline of trikonic, p 6] -- I would prefer 'signs' instead of 'sign classes' but if you accept that we are in agreement here (and I think that Claudio, Sarbo and Farkas would also agree). The point where we differ, as I see it, is whether we deem it possible to analyze sign processes in more detail with the help of sign aspects. I think it is worth a try, while you argue that it will prove to be a dead end. I suggest approaching the matter according to the categories. We get then: - possibilities of signs - aspects of signs - embodied signs - 10 sign types - real or operative signs - actual thought, argument, 1 sign type Now lets pose the following question: Are the 9 sign types (the argumentative sign type excepted), each on its own, modes of thought or do they only become real in arguments? I think the later. That however does not make them worthless. On the contrary distinguishing sign types enable us to arrest our moving thought and to become critical. Side question: If we analyze a living argument according to its constituents in terms of sign types, do we meet always all sign types or can we do without some of them in some cases? I think the former but will not argue it now. But why should we stop here? Why shouldn't we try to cover all the way to the manifold of sense? To push further is the attempt I see in Sarbo's proto-sign approach. You call that approach dyadic. I am far from sure that that is the right criticism. It sets off with a contrast, the contrast that emerges when something (the blowing whistle of a train for instance) is entering the field of consciousness. But from then on it is all mediation until the intrusion is understood. That is, if we do not look at it as stating a bottom up approach, for if we do, then indeed, a mechanism is supposed and not an adaptive system that is habitually interpreting. Since I am co-author of Natural Grammar your remark below also applies to me: GR:Sarbo comments that We gladly acknowledge that the term proto-sign has been suggested by Gary Richmond, but does not note that I coined this term while expressing exasperation at their referring to the elements of their own dyadic and, in fact, wholly Boolean structure as if they were actual, embodied signs. --- I am sorry you feel that way and can only say that we did only state who suggested the term out of intellectual honesty. That has nothing to do with the position taken by the person suggesting the term, that can, as in this case it obviously is, also be somebody with strong inclinations against the theory. As a matter of fact, the term proto-sign was welcomed by Sarbo just because it indicates that the elements must not be taken as actual, embodied signs. With regard to 'wholly Boolean structure' I have to disagree with you. The Boolean operators figure in the model but the structuring is according to the gradual development of the sign in an interpretative system eventually determining its interpretant to stand in the same relation to its object as it stands itself. Without however a concrete interpretation. It is a model of a process, not any specific process itself. With regard to conceptualization you asked me to be more precise. You stated: GR:First, I would like to suggest that ICCS and CGs are more closely associated with knowledge representation than with knowledge management while the two over-lap to some extent. And I asked how conceptualization fits in. Adding that I expect an overlap between knowledge representation and conceptualization. Knowledge representation is aiming at forming information systems. It has more to do with organizing
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Auke, Thank you for your good and thoughtful response. At the moment I've so many deadlines approaching that I won't be able to add more than a few inter-paragraphical comments. But first allow to apologize for not acknowledging your co-authorship of "Natural Grammar.". The copy that Sarbo sent me by snail mail begins with the Title and Abstract and does not include the authors' names (perhaps it is a draft?) and there was no cover letter with the paper--although Sarbo did email me saying that he was sending it. In any event, I had assumed that the paper was by Sarbo or Sarbo and Farkas since all the ICCS papers of Sarbo's that I'm familiar with have the latter joint authorship. Now the few comments on the philosophical matters at hand. Auke van Breemen wrote: I expect that we will end up with something at least of the order of the Welby classification. Then 9 aspects will not be sufficient. But the so-called Welby classification involves the consideration of the role of the interpretant in semeiotic moving theoretically somewhat far beyond the 10-adic classification of [year] Although there are areas in which we are in disagreement, Bernard Morand and I have agreed on the list that the 10-adic diagram of x is based on just three of the 10 types discussed in the Welby classification--that is, the trichotomic exposition in the body of the letter. A different, but naturally related question concerns the diagram Peirce drew on the verso of a page of the Welby letter ( it is here that Morand and I disagree, but this is an entirely distinct issue from the one we're presently considering). In any event, it is the discussion of these, shall we say, "Welby aspects" of the matter which I imagine will be--and surely ought be--on-going. This is truly new territory, and I applaud Bernard for his efforts in this regard even as I disagree with some of his conclusions. The point here, however, is that it seems no longer a question to, for example, Bernard and I (and this is also clearly the position of Liszka, Kent and Parker as well) that the trichotomies relating to the sign/object/interpretant do indeed "result together in dividing Signs into TEN CLASSES OF SIGNS" as Peirce explicitly states in CP .2.254 which prefaces his diagram of the 10-adic classification just mentioned. So what I am going to defend is the use of triadically derived sign aspects for other purposes then typecasting. It is not a defense of the sufficiency of the 9 aspects. GR wrote: . . . In a word, the nine sign "parametric" choices do not themselves represent embodied signs, whereas the ten classes do.[GR, Outline of trikonic, p 6] -- I would prefer 'signs' instead of 'sign classes' but if you accept that we are in agreement here (and I think that Claudio, Sarbo and Farkas would also agree). 1st, again, I say "sign classes" based on Peirce's remark just quoted: "The three trichotomies of Signs result together in dividing Signs into TEN CLASSES OF SIGNS." CP .2.254: 2nd, I'm not sure whether indeed we truly all are in fact in agreement here, or perhaps on what we are in agreement? Would you please clarify what exactly you are suggesting that Guerri, Sarbo, Farkas, you and I are in agreement about? I think that would be very helpful for the progress of the discussion. <>The point where we differ, as I see it, is whether we deem it possible to analyze sign processes in more detail with the help of sign aspects. I think it is worth a try, while you argue that it will prove to be a dead end. Not so much a "dead end" as theoretically incorrect (the nonagon may prove to be anything but a "dead end" while "proto-signs" seem to me to be exactly this).. Anyhow, when one continues to use the language of really embodied signs to refer to that which is not one (as Sarbo does) one confuses matters. It is quite one thing to suggest informally that something is "iconic" and quite another that it is an "icon" as Peirce defines this in relation to his classification within logic as semeiotic, that is, for science.. Sarbo, as I see it, consistently theoretically errs in explicitly using a terminology which ought apply only to embodied signs as analyzed in philosophical grammar and critical logic, and begun to be used in the explication of a pragmatic method of inquiry in speculative rhetoric. Further, all the sciences following these are expected to employ the fruits of the mathematical, trichotomically phenomenological, normative science--including philosophically important esthetic concerns (esp. those related to the summum bonum), ethical concerns (esp. those concerned with establishing habits leading to the growth of character), but perhaps especially logical concerns ( esp. semeiotic inquiry, leading to the growth of intellect and the evolution of consciousness). Now your suggestion considering sign types "according to the categories" You divided matters thus. <>- possibilities of signs - aspects of signs - embodied signs -
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Joe, Ben, List, I agree with Joe that Ben should be at the ICCS workshop! Finding your discussion of considerable interest and thinking that Aldo de Moor might as well, I wrote the following: to him (I'd forwarded Aldo most of that earlier exchange, not reproduced below). Hi, Aldo, FYI, Ben Udell replied to Ransdell's query. I've also attached to the bottom of this post Joe's brief reply where he wonders whether we are posing the right questions in the CfP, and that while there is something important happening in this he expresses as well a certain feeling of distrust about it.as being, perhaps, a form of technocracy. Technocracy? What do you think? Best, Gary Here is Aldo's email which he said I could forward to Peirce-l. Dear Gary, A valuable discussion on Peirce-l. Interestingly, we had a similar discussion in the Community Informatics community recently. My being in between the hardcore technological and soft philosophy/community development research communities, it is difficult to explain the exact point satisfactorily to everybody. I will give it a try, though. What we are after is the _opposite_ of promoting technocracy. Technologies both afford and constrain behavior. At the moment, technocratic developers have little understanding of the often subtle requirements of (communities of) users of their technologies, and how these technologies can satisfy or hinder the realization of these needs. On the other hand, philosophy and community researchers often insufficiently try to inform technology and systems developers of their useful insights, even though this is essential for technology to become more appropriate and legitimate. Our mission is, simply put, to build bridges between the technologists and the voices of the community. To make this concrete, I will list three projects I am currently involved in. - A workshop on Community Informatics at the hardcore OTM conference: http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/fedconf/index.html?page=cominf2006cfp Goal of this workshop is exactly to move away from a technocratic approach to technology development, a goal reflected in the definition of Community Informatics adopted by the Community Informatics Research Network (http://www.ciresearch.net/) and used in the CfP: Community Informatics, also known as community networking, electronic community networking, community-based technologies or community technology refers to an emerging set of principles and practices concerned with the use of Information and Communications Technologies for personal, social, cultural or economic development within communities, for enabling the achievement of collaboratively determined community goals, and for invigorating and empowering communities in relation to their larger social, economic, cultural and political environments. - The development of an, applied philosophical if you will, methodology for the diagnosis of socio-technical systems to better balance community requirements with supporting ICTs. See for an explanation and case study: A. de Moor and M. Aakhus (2006). Argumentation Support: From Technologies to Tools. Communications of the ACM, 49(3):93-98. http://www.starlab.vub.ac.be/staff/ademoor/papers/cacm06_demoor_aakhus.pdf - The CS-TIW 2006 workshop being discussed on your list. http://www.iccs-06.hum.aau.dk/tools.htm I can imagine that for Peirce-l members not aware of the ICCS context of this workshop the wording of the call may lead to some confusion. This project indeed has more of a technological (though not technocratic!) focus. The goal of CS-TIW is a very practical one: many Conceptual Structures representation and reasoning tools have been developed over the years, including a whole range of Conceptual Graphs and Formal Concept Analysis tools. Even though these tools support very interesting _formal knowledge_ operations, they do not talk to each other, nor to information systems out there in the real world that could benefit from their functionalities. The goal of the workshop is simply to (1) better understand why these tools do not interoperate and (2) what practical solutions could be developed to address this problem. The rough, narrow definition of a knowledge system is thus a combination of conceptual structures tools and the information systems on which they operate, resulting in more effective and efficient knowledge representation and analysis processes. Getting our technological act together is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for developing more enlightened information and knowledge systems. Of course, we shouldn't stop at just improving formal knowledge representation and analysis. Once we have a better understanding of the technical and organizational interoperability problems focused on in the CS-TIW workshop, we can more systematically examine the relationships of conceptual structures tools with society at large. The more important questions therefore revolve around how knowledge systems
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Joe, list, JR wrote: I googled the term knowledge management and immediately found a very informative website, very intelligently structured as an answer to the question of what knowledge management is. Here is the URL: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/knowledge+management Very informative, particularly taken together with your testimony, which is most helpful, Ben. Yet I can't shake a certain feeling of distrust about it.as being, perhaps, a form of technocracy. --end Joe, I guess it can be looked that way and the distrust is healty, but one can also think of it asestablishing a set of superpersonal habits. A sign that has a function. CSP: It appears to me that the essential function of a sign is to render inefficient relations efficient, -- not to set them into action, but to establish a habit or general rule whereby they will act on occasion. CP 8.332 --- In that case the construction of the sign involves the execution of self control. I think it is here that Claudio's Nonagons may play a healty role. In EE one puts the vaguely defined 'knowledge system'. I guess that EV adresses the technological side of the matter and VV the sociological or whatever import the system is imagined to must have beside the strictly functional one. Etc. If used in this way the nonagon can safeguard for to much of an apparatski character of the system, amongst others. At the very least a nonagon would establishes the habit of addressing the different aspects that have to be taken into account. But I agree withe skeptics that the way in which to proceed with the Nonagons is althougether clear. It mediates between what is and what might become only in a very loose way. And would probably need other methods as a complement like maybe the trikons of Gary R or the proto signs of Sarbo and Farkas or still something I do not know of. It would be great if at Arisbee a node is added in which the different tools/methods that are around can be presented. Auke van Breemen --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Auke, Thank you for your interesting comments and for the quite pertinent Peirce quotation reminding us "that the essential function of a sign is to render inefficient relations efficient." There seems to me to be a great power in that notion both generally in semeiotic, but also and in particular as it relates to "knowledge representation" and "knowledge management" in our era of tremendous electronic advances leading, for example famously, to the WWW (and its possible evolution as a Semantic Pragmatic Web), virtual community development, etc., and thus to such problems as interoperability both in the narrow (technical) as well as in the more social (pragmatic) sense (Aldo's 'hard' 'soft'). As a supplement to the URL Joe supplied for "knowledge management" I'd like to add several others, all from Wikipedia. First, I would like to suggest that ICCS and CGs are more closely associated with "knowledge representation" than with "knowledge management" while the two over-lap to some extent. knowledge representation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_representation knowledge management: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_management Of course conceptual graphs (CG)--which figure along with formal concept analysis (FCA) prominently at ICCS--are "merely" a form of Peirce's existential graphs (EG) but have in recent years begun to be employed in the development of "ontologies" (which term as used in computer science has a separate meaning from the philosophical one, referring to the modeling of a specific 'domain' in the world for use in libraries, data bases, etc.) conceptual graphs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_Graphs ontology (computer science): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(computer_science) This use (or some would say, misuse) of philosophical language has not been left uncriticized within the KR community itself . See, for example, Peter Ohrstrom's paper "What Has Happened to Ontology" (ICCS05 proceedings) which argues, among other things, that the idea of "ontological commitment" has not been thoroughly analyzed in CS, and that while it is assumed that 'ontologies' as used in modern KR are 'simply' an information practice "that they do in fact presuppose some rather specific, but hidden ontological commitments" and that "a lack of awareness [of these hidden commitments] may turn out to be rather problematic." Those keenly interested in the role of philosophical analysis within these "virtual worlds" have a good amount of important work to do now and in the future. I am pleased to report that within ICCS at least there seems to be a growing respect for the sort of difficult questioning of assumptions which would seem to continue to be an important part of a philosopher's work even--and perhaps especially--in our era of global communications. Gary Auke van Breemen wrote [in part]: Joe, I guess it can be looked that way and the distrust is healty, but one can also think of it asestablishing a set of superpersonal habits. A sign that has a function. CSP: It appears to me that the essential function of a sign is to render inefficient relations efficient, -- not to set them into action, but to establish a habit or general rule whereby they will act on occasion. CP 8.332 --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Dear Gary, Auke -- Which suggests to me the related notion that the consequences of actions involving objects aresometimes more efficiently determined by thinking them through with signs. Signs are tools for forcasting the outcomes of events -- affording all those who have them a great evolutionary advantage over those who do not. Jim Piat Gray Richmond wrote: Auke,Thank you for your interesting comments and for the quite pertinent Peirce quotation reminding us "that the essential function of a sign is to render inefficient relations efficient." --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
angry -- indignantly, self-righteously angry -- to go into a library and see someone sitting at an information desk, waiting for people to come up with questions when all such time and resource-wasting jobs could be eliminated at any time by nothing more difficult to engineer than an automated system of computer query and retrieval, and this, he believed, was generally true of librarial functions. It struck me as funny at the time that he had no awareness of the enormously complex system of practices,developed both by librarians and by users of books, that were represented in the individuals sitting or standing at those desks that in fact made them vastly more efficient for the needs they served than any computational system that could have been implemented at that time. And since then I have come to think that the remarkably rapid development of the new technologies on the technical side on up through the latter part of the 90's, at least, reinforced the worst tendencies of the otherwise admirable idealism that was and still largely is to be found among people who have come into this from the computer side to regard the problem of the user's perspective, as given by pre-existing practices, as something to be solved by someone who never had such a problem to begin with but who is in possession of a lot of ingenious solutions to a lot of problems already solved that seem at least somewhat similar to it. Even now I see a lot of discussion of technical solutions to technical problems but not much realistic discussion of the realities of practices that are in desperate need of reform as well as technological enablement. Joe Ransdell - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu Cc: Aldo de Moor [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 8:15 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop Joe, Ben, List, I agree with Joe that Ben should be at the ICCS workshop! Finding your discussion of considerable interest and thinking that Aldo de Moor might as well, I wrote the following: to him (I'd forwarded Aldo most of that earlier exchange, not reproduced below). Hi, Aldo, FYI, Ben Udell replied to Ransdell's query. I've also attached to the bottom of this post Joe's brief reply where he wonders whether we are posing the right questions in the CfP, and that while there is something important happening in this he expresses as well a certain feeling of distrust about it.as being, perhaps, a form of technocracy. Technocracy? What do you think? Best, Gary Here is Aldo's email which he said I could forward to Peirce-l. Dear Gary, A valuable discussion on Peirce-l. Interestingly, we had a similar discussion in the Community Informatics community recently. My being in between the hardcore technological and soft philosophy/community development research communities, it is difficult to explain the exact point satisfactorily to everybody. I will give it a try, though. What we are after is the _opposite_ of promoting technocracy. Technologies both afford and constrain behavior. At the moment, technocratic developers have little understanding of the often subtle requirements of (communities of) users of their technologies, and how these technologies can satisfy or hinder the realization of these needs. On the other hand, philosophy and community researchers often insufficiently try to inform technology and systems developers of their useful insights, even though this is essential for technology to become more appropriate and legitimate. Our mission is, simply put, to build bridges between the technologists and the voices of the community. To make this concrete, I will list three projects I am currently involved in. - A workshop on Community Informatics at the hardcore OTM conference: http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/fedconf/index.html?page=cominf2006cfp Goal of this workshop is exactly to move away from a technocratic approach to technology development, a goal reflected in the definition of Community Informatics adopted by the Community Informatics Research Network (http://www.ciresearch.net/) and used in the CfP: Community Informatics, also known as community networking, electronic community networking, community-based technologies or community technology refers to an emerging set of principles and practices concerned with the use of Information and Communications Technologies for personal, social, cultural or economic development within communities, for enabling the achievement of collaboratively determined community goals, and for invigorating and empowering communities in relation to their larger social, economic, cultural and political environments. - The development of an, applied philosophical if you will, methodology for the diagnosis of socio-technical systems to better balance community requirements with supporting ICTs. See for an explanation and case study: A. de Moor and M. Aakhus
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
ith whom I was then collaborating who spoke about how it made him angry -- indignantly, self-righteously angry -- to go into a library and see someone sitting at an information desk, waiting for people to come up with questions when all such time and resource-wasting jobs could be eliminated at any time by nothing more difficult to engineer than an automated system of computer query and retrieval, and this, he believed, was generally true of librarial functions. It struck me as funny at the time that he had no awareness of the enormously complex system of practices,developed both by librarians and by users of books, that were represented in the individuals sitting or standing at those desks that in fact made them vastly more efficient for the needs they served than any computational system that could have been implemented at that time. And since then I have come to think that the remarkably rapid development of the new technologies on the technical side on up through the latter part of the 90's, at least, reinforced the worst tendencies of the otherwise admirable idealism that was and still largely is to be found among people who have come into this from the computer side to regard the problem of the user's perspective, as given by pre-existing practices, as something to be solved by someone who never had such a problem to begin with but who is in possession of a lot of ingenious solutions to a lot of problems already solved that seem at least somewhat similar to it. Even now I see a lot of discussion of technical solutions to technical problems but not much realistic discussion of the realities of practices that are in desperate need of reform as well as technological enablement. Joe Ransdell - Original Message - From: "Gary Richmond" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu Cc: "Aldo de Moor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 26, 2006 8:15 AM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop Joe, Ben, List, I agree with Joe that Ben should be at the ICCS workshop! Finding your discussion of considerable interest and thinking that Aldo de Moor might as well, I wrote the following: to him (I'd forwarded Aldo most of that earlier exchange, not reproduced below). Hi, Aldo, FYI, Ben Udell replied to Ransdell's query. I've also attached to the bottom of this post Joe's brief reply where he wonders whether we are posing the "right questions" in the CfP, and that while "there is something important happening in this" he expresses as well "a certain feeling of distrust about it.as being, perhaps, a form of technocracy." Technocracy? What do you think? Best, Gary Here is Aldo's email which he said I could forward to Peirce-l. Dear Gary, A valuable discussion on Peirce-l. Interestingly, we had a similar discussion in the Community Informatics community recently. My being in between the hardcore technological and "soft" philosophy/community development research communities, it is difficult to explain the exact point satisfactorily to everybody. I will give it a try, though. What we are after is the _opposite_ of promoting technocracy. Technologies both afford and constrain behavior. At the moment, "technocratic" developers have little understanding of the often subtle requirements of (communities of) users of their technologies, and how these technologies can satisfy or hinder the realization of these needs. On the other hand, philosophy and community researchers often insufficiently try to inform technology and systems developers of their useful insights, even though this is essential for technology to become more appropriate and legitimate. Our mission is, simply put, to build bridges between the technologists and the voices of the community. To make this concrete, I will list three projects I am currently involved in. - A workshop on Community Informatics at the "hardcore" OTM conference: http://www.cs.rmit.edu.au/fedconf/index.html?page=cominf2006cfp Goal of this workshop is exactly to move away from a technocratic approach to technology development, a goal reflected in the definition of Community Informatics adopted by the Community Informatics Research Network (http://www.ciresearch.net/) and used in the CfP: "Community Informatics, also known as community networking, electronic community networking, community-based technologies or community technology refers to an emerging set of principles and practices concerned with the use of Information and Communications Technologies for personal, social, cultural or economic development within communities, for enabling the achievement of collaboratively determined community goals, and for invigorating and empowering communities in relation to their larger social, economic, cultural and political environments." - The development of an, "applied phi
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:
BTW: A "tool interoperability" workshop
is not something that I would
expect anyone here to find interesting - even if the tools do deal with
"conceptual structures" - which means, in this case, schemas and their
instances.
Steven,
I'm giving the keynote address for this workshop do find issues
of conceptual structures tools of considerable interest (especially as
these relate to other interoperability concerns, as they most certainly
do--and indeed to concerns of entire "communities of interest"). So, I
would like to know why you see "conceptual structures" as conceived by,
for example, Sowa and de Moor (and others), as reduced "in this case"
to "schemas and their instances." In short, why do you say that tool
interoperability should be philosophically uninteresting?The tools
involved do relate to conceptual structures (Sowa's CGs == Peirce's
EGs for example). Why shouldn't the scheme-instance structure to which
you see it reducedallow for conceptual structures of some
philosophical interest for someone ("anyone")?
Gary
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop
Sounds to me like you should be at that meeting, Ben. Do you think they are posing the right questions? I mean the ones in the CFP that Gary posted? I am convinced that there is something important happening in this, but with an uneasy feeling that they are not picking it up by the right handle. I googled the term knowledge management and immediately found a very informative website, very intelligently structured as an answer to the question of what knowledge management is. Here is the URL: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/knowledge+management Very informative, particularly taken together with your testimony, which is most helpful, Ben. Yet I can't shake a certain feeling of distrust about it.as being, perhaps, a form of technocracy. . Joe Ransdell - Original Message - From: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 7:24 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop Joe, I don't know how Gary will respond, but I googled around a bit and I think that the main thing to keep in mind is that the knowledge involved is not at all necessarily _theoretical_ knowledge. It could be practical facts about who sits where, what's their phone number, who's in charge of what, who reports to whom, etc. Then it could be facts about their work groups or departments, etc. Who to call about what, all the facilities info. The knowledge system might be a corporate intranet with all kinds of info that people can think of. Then there are the locations of the various service centers, how many at each, and so on. Even a glossary of departmental terms lingo. This knowledge needs to be kept updated. When I worked at a major corporation, I developed, maintained, and continually updated distributed a hardcopy one-page knowledge system with at least 50 different fonts, crammed with all the secretarial (aka administrative) and facilities info anybody could possibly want, an immense amount, and this saved around 60 secretaries hundreds of others lots of work frustration. Between the tasks of getting all that info right (because I hated every experience in which I had spent excessive time to get wrong info, so I wanted it right for _everybody_) and the MS-Word formatting challenges down to tiny spacings and crashing serifs, -- well, it was the right combination for me, I actually was almost stakhanovist for a while, and worked largely unsupervised on my self-generated projects and on presentations for all askers for a good year a half. But all good things And that's already ancient times now. Intranets have come on big and by now I'm sure they're much more powerful. Or the knowledge system could be the distilled practical knowledge of skilled auto mechanics for all kinds of cars, trucks, etc., turned into a program that's like a superglorified Help button, and which auto mechanics everywhere could buy. It would be updatable, too. The knowledge system could be a medical diagnosis system, software with the distilled knowledge of diagnosticians, and kept updated. It could be an online system of listing of real estate properties for sale or rent, with lots of attendant info plust photos, continually updated, and searchable by many kinds of criteria, etc. It would allow searching for nearest local schools, searching on real estate agents, etc. Many a business purpose will end up with custom-designed software. It could be customer information and that's a big deal these days! It could be information about online behavior. That corporate intranet becomes a way to manage the extranet (interface with clients/customers). Then one can allow people to find out about programs, to fill out applications, etc. And the management and improvement of the extranet is an intranet capability. As systems get interconnected, maybe the sky's the limit as people figure out ways for diverse systems to query one another. Best, Ben - Original Message - From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 3:38 PM Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop Gary: I am wondering what is meant by a knowledge system? Is it the same thing as an accepted theory about this or that subject-matter? If so why not just call it a theory? But I doubt that that is what is meant. I know that people are now hired by corporations and by universities in particular as being knowledge management experts, but I never have been able to figure out what there is to manage about knowledge. Is that what you are talking about when you talk about knowledge systems: batches of knowledge owned by a corporation and put to work in producing some goods or services? Or is it just something like keeping track of patents owned? Joe Ransdell - Original Message - From: Gary
