Jon,
I like your idea of a public letter. It grows out of things Glen has said
about the implicit hypocrisy of writing to a person while posting to a list. I
think he is wrong about that, but in a right sort of way. I think one can have
a discussion with one person as a performance before an interested audience
without being a hypocrite. The aspiration is to draw the larger audience in
and to see the larger scope of the discussion.
So I will answer as "Nick" if not as Nick.
Please see Larding, below.
Nick Thompson
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > On
Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 12:14 PM
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
Nick,
Is there a technical word for an essay one writes in preparation for another
essay? I have been struggling over the last several weeks to write two essays,
one preparatory on Euclid's second proposition (choices andm[NST===>I have
written such preparatory essays. I call them “rants”. My parents use to talk
about authors that had to write whole ranting BOOKS before they could get down
to write the essay that anybody would red. Much of the critique that Glen was
mounting on Friday is to the effect that one must not confuse one’s rants with
the final product. <===nst] isdirections) and the other on Chris Marker's *Le
Jetee*. The role of Euclid's second will be to aid in an explication of
Marker's conception of time travel and causality. This connection is perhaps
what got me so entranced by the discussion of Bayesian networks. Did you ever
clarify for yourself what *screening-off* is?
[NST===>The problem in teaching something to someone else is never that they
don’t know what X is; it is that they already KNOW what x is and their
knowledge is just plain wrong. I know that that violates the tradition
definition of “knowledge”, but so be it. The philosophical definition of
“knowledge” (justified true belief) is just insane. My breakthrough on
screening off occurred when I realized that it meant the exact opposite of what
I thought it meant. I have yet to work that insight through the whole paper,
so cannot promise that I “have it”, even now, but will let you know. <===nst]
I continue to hope that my contributions to that discussion will inspire you
to tell me more about the connection you see to *variation partitioning*, an
idea I wish to understand better and that you seem to understand well.
[NST===>Oh. The idea of variance partitioning is so primitive and so
PsychMethods 101 that I am sure I have rendered it so badly that you just don’t
recognize it. It is just the idea that one can partition all the variations
within any data set from the mean of that data set, into main effects,
interactions between main effects, ….etc…… and residual variance or “error”.
Under certain assumptions which statisticians take seriously but all
psychologists ignore, these partitions are additive so that the error variance
plus all the main effects, plus all the interactions, sums up to the variance
of the whole data set from the set mean. It’s relation to screening off is
probably either wrong or so obscure as to not be worthy of consideration.
<===nst]
Some time ago, you mentioned the role of *seduction*
[NST===>I would be surprised if I was so blatant as to use that word; however,
I do believe that it is the burden of the writer to meet the reader on his/her
own territory and bring him or home. Now, nobody ever writes to every
audiences, so it is an important role of introductions to declare one’s
audience, so others can ignore one’s writing and get on with their lives. We
violate that rule all the time in FRIAM which is why it is such a mess and such
fun. <===nst]
in conversation.I am listening to a series of interviews with Giles Deleuze
[NST===>I just don’t know how you find the time. I am guessing you can do so
because you can code and listen to podcasts at the same time. What a wonderful
thing that must be. <===nst]
and he mentions the disdain he has for talking, and from what I can tell it is
this quality, that of seduction that makes talking dirty in comparison to
writing. Would you write more on seduction?
[NST===>Seduction implies dissembling, right? I don’t think there is any
deception in good argumentative writing, any more than there is deception in a
chess move. It’s all there to be seen. Your hope is to position the readers
so they see – if only briefly – your world as you see it. If readers come to
see their world as you see it, that’s a bonus. <===nst]
Also along the trajectory of a Deleuzian dive, I am working through his text
*Difference and Repetition*. He writes about an extensional-intensional
distinction in the concept of repetition that I find fascinating,[NST===>I
haven’t given up on writing something on the i/e distinction in relation to the
“epiphenomenator” so this interest me<===nst] *repetition* is in relation to
something unique or singular having no equal or equivalent. He writes:
"""
But in any case, generality expresses a point of view according to which one
term may be exchanged or substituted for another. The exchange or substitution
of particulars defines our conduct in relation to generality...By contrast, we
can see that repetition is a necessary and justified conduct only in relation
to that which cannot be replaced.
"""
He gives an example that I can relate with, poetry:
"""
It is not by chance that a poem must be learned by heart. The head is the organ
of exchange, but the heart is the amorous organ of repetition. Pius Servien
rightly distinguished two languages: the language of science, dominated by the
symbol of equality, in which each term may be replaced by others; and lyrical
language, in which every term is irreplaceable and can only be repeated.
"""
Of course, now I have to remember why I felt it important to share this with
you. Maybe it was this... Seduction can only repeat. Recently, you mentioned a
modality that I sympathize with, going to speak and finding yourself developing
an argument. There is the desire to develop, clarify and share a concept. On
philosophy, Deleuze mentions the posing of problems and the creation of
concepts. He speaks about their relation, that with Leibniz, say, he presents
the *monad* and this *concept* is found necessary or is somehow manifest, from
an underlying *problem*.
To read philosophy is to suss out those *unenunciated* (latent?) problems
philosophers aim at with their concepts. Is it fair to say that concepts belong
to the world of generality and exist to clarify and facilitate the exploration
of problems, problems that belong to the world of repetition?
You appear to have a certain fondness for philosophy, and even if only through
Peirce, I invite your reflections.
[NST===>I think Peirce might say that there are no singular objects. If an
object were genuinely singular, would would not be able to see it. <===nst]
Jon
[NST===>I have to quit, now; this is the best I can do. [sigh]<===nst]
--
Sent from: <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
Nick Thompson
[email protected]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[email protected]> On Behalf Of jon zingale
Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 12:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
Nick,
Is there a technical word for an essay one writes in preparation for another
essay? I have been struggling over the last several weeks to write two essays,
one preparatory on Euclid's second proposition (choices and
misdirections) and the other on Chris Marker's *Le Jetee*. The role of Euclid's
second will be to aid in an explication of Marker's conception of time travel
and causality. This connection is perhaps what got me so entranced by the
discussion of Bayesian networks. Did you ever clarify for yourself what
*screening-off* is? I continue to hope that my contributions to that discussion
will inspire you to tell me more about the connection you see to *variation
partitioning*, an idea I wish to understand better and that you seem to
understand well.
Some time ago, you mentioned the role of *seduction* in conversation. I am
listening to a series of interviews with Giles Deleuze and he mentions the
disdain he has for talking, and from what I can tell it is this quality, that
of seduction that makes talking dirty in comparison to writing. Would you write
more on seduction?
Also along the trajectory of a Deleuzian dive, I am working through his text
*Difference and Repetition*. He writes about an extensional-intensional
distinction in the concept of repetition that I find fascinating,
*repetition* is in relation to something unique or singular having no equal or
equivalent. He writes:
"""
But in any case, generality expresses a point of view according to which one
term may be exchanged or substituted for another. The exchange or substitution
of particulars defines our conduct in relation to generality...By contrast, we
can see that repetition is a necessary and justified conduct only in relation
to that which cannot be replaced.
"""
He gives an example that I can relate with, poetry:
"""
It is not by chance that a poem must be learned by heart. The head is the organ
of exchange, but the heart is the amorous organ of repetition. Pius Servien
rightly distinguished two languages: the language of science, dominated by the
symbol of equality, in which each term may be replaced by others; and lyrical
language, in which every term is irreplaceable and can only be repeated.
"""
Of course, now I have to remember why I felt it important to share this with
you. Maybe it was this... Seduction can only repeat. Recently, you mentioned a
modality that I sympathize with, going to speak and finding yourself developing
an argument. There is the desire to develop, clarify and share a concept. On
philosophy, Deleuze mentions the posing of problems and the creation of
concepts. He speaks about their relation, that with Leibniz, say, he presents
the *monad* and this *concept* is found necessary or is somehow manifest, from
an underlying *problem*.
To read philosophy is to suss out those *unenunciated* (latent?) problems
philosophers aim at with their concepts. Is it fair to say that concepts belong
to the world of generality and exist to clarify and facilitate the exploration
of problems, problems that belong to the world of repetition?
You appear to have a certain fondness for philosophy, and even if only through
Peirce, I invite your reflections.
Jon
--
Sent from: <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
<http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/>
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
