Auke, list, Thanks for your response.
First, as regards Stamper's ladder, I don't know if there exists a diagram which would show the modifications and augmentations which you've suggested have been made to the ladder since he devised it, but I think it might be helpful for the list to look at the basic diagram: [image: image.png] Perhaps this (or some other diagram which you might supply) could serve as the basis for forum members getting a handle on those enhancements that you outlined in an earlier message, especially should we get further into this topic. Although I have probably said enough about the current disagreements regarding views of semeiotics, and while I would like for us to get back to substantive matters, I feel I need to say a word about this: AvB: 1. One was intensely scrutinizing the text (Jon, John). 2. The other reads it at an arm’s length (Tom Short, with the first involved, he did a great job in his books on understanding Peirce, and remained critical), 3. with the third the book on her lap, while see looked around (Edwina, Dan). I had earlier drafted a segment of this post which took up each of the individuals mentioned above as I thought your outline over-simplified the complexity of the interests of each of the scholars named. But I decided that it was probably best that I only say for now that the thinkers you mentioned above cannot, in my opinion, be so neatly pigeon-holed. As I see it, their interests extend *at least* over the three approaches to Peirce scholarship which you have chosen to characterize. In my view none of them can be so compartmentalized. And further, does anyone here (or elsewhere) have the expertise, or for that matter, the right to categorize these individual's approaches or interests in this way? I would only say that there is no doubt in my mind--and I think I know enough of their scholarly work to say this--that they are all extremely intelligent and extraordinarily complex thinkers; and that is the *only way* I would care to characterize them publicly. Thank you for the more detailed explication of your earlier example. It completely clarifies it as "an expression of “inconsistencies aris[ing] at the level of axioms” at the social level and that that it is usually possible to "accept lower-level facts without creating any conflict.” I continue to find this analysis of interoperability at the social level of considerable interest and would be eager to learn more. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 4:33 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, List, > > > > Regarding Stampers Ladder you wrote: my interests have changed > considerably in the baker's dozen of years since I wrote that paper and … > > > > RE: The ‘might’ in ‘you might be interested’ wasn’t meant as ‘you > should’, but as a polite alternative to ‘may’. > > My aim was not to get you reading Stamper, but to show that from practical > need somebody extended the amount of layers in such a way that somebody > interested in nagging about the technical terms of semiotics and their > relations, could recognize this as fitting with the Peircean scheme and > decided to try to put the idea further in such a way that all sign aspects > are covered. > > > > This example seemed especially fit since, lately, I see some quit > fundamentalist attitude on this list regarding the interpretation of > Peircean semiotics. If you look at the foundation of those attempt, it > strikes me that the one seems to originate in turning speculative grammar > to the end all of the enterprise and the other the semantic layer. If we do > this when interested in information systems (as well man as an information > system as in building them for organizations) then not only such > enterprises fall short in coming to terms with the subject matter. They > also tend to block the way of inquiry. Each sign aspect provides another > perspective on the problem and each aspect has its own telos. The question > ought not to be ‘who is right according to Peirce’, but how do we connect > the different perspectives? > > > > When a student, I bought a worn reproduction because I wanted the frame it > was put in. When home I hung it at the wall and soon decided to keep it > because it showed three reformation ladies reading the holy bible. 1. One > was intensely scrutinizing the text (Jon, John). 2. The other reads it at > an arm’s length (Tom Short, with the first involved, he did a great job in > his books on understanding Peirce, and remained critical), 3. with the > third the book on her lap, while see looked around (Edwina, Dan). > > It nicely expresses the way one should deal with the philosopher one has a > particular interest in, as a safeguard for an uncritical attitude. > > > > > > With regard to the example. > > Let’s take the DSM classification of autism. The label z is deemed > applicable if x out of x+y characteristics is applicable, where > x+y=characteristics of z. Let x be the characteristics pertaining to > information processing and let y be the characteristics pertaining to > empathy and social behavior. > > Now a parent and a school disagree regarding a child/pupil having z. If we > now turn the attention to each of the characteristics, it will prove the > case that on that score, there is less divergence in opinion. On top of > that, in many cases the characteristics that remain contested prove to > result from the context the child is in, i.e. home for the parents and > school for the authorities. For me it is an expression of “inconsistencies > arise at the level of axioms” at the social level and “they can usually > accept lower-level facts without creating any conflict”. > > > > Hope this is more clearly stated. > > > > Best, > > Auke van Breemen > > > > > > *Van:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *Verzonden:* maandag 1 april 2019 21:11 > *Aan:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Onderwerp:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce .. and its importance > > > > Auke, List, > > > > Thank you for reading my paper on interoperability. It would appear that a > great deal of work has been done in that area since I presented that paper > as the keynote at a workshop developed by Aldo de Moor, Harry Delugach, and > Simon Polovina at ICCS 2006. While interoperability continues to be, it > seems to me, a vexing problem, it has appeared to me that clear advances > have been made in the past decade. > > > > I read some of Ronald Stamper's work years ago, but I must admit that my > interests have changed considerably in the baker's dozen of years since I > wrote that paper and, the following year, one on enterprise and > inter-enterprise systems architecture: > > > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic_architectonic.pdf > _ > > > > You quoted me quoting John Sowa from the interoperability paper: > > > > JS: The point is the UF is primarily intended as a framework for > communication among potentially (or actually) incompatible systems. The > major inconsistencies arise at the level of axioms, which none of these > systems would accept from one another. But they can usually accept > lower-level facts without creating any conflict. > > > > And commenting on "[systems] can usually accept lower-level facts without > creating any conflict" wrote: > > > > AvB: It is supported in my research at the social level. > > > > I would be interested in hearing more about this (your single example > wasn't entirely clear to me). > > > > Best, > > > > Gary > > > > > > *Gary Richmond* > > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > > *Communication Studies* > > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 9:49 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Gary, Jon, Ronald, List, > > > > Gary, > > I read your > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/InteropArisbe.pdf > > > > You distinguish three levels of interoperability. The Syntactic, semantic > and pragmatic levels. You might be interested in Ronald Stamper and his > semiotic ladder. He also started with three levels, but actually building > information systems and designing methods to do that, he found the need to > extend the amount of levels with three, the technical, empirical and after > your three the social. I can match them with my semiotic KiF-Framework. > Then still three pigeon holes of the nine sign aspects are left open. I > hold it to be the index, the legisign and the symbol position. This makes > sense because in the KiF-model they are either the connection (index) of > state and effect or the type pertaining to the effect and the meaning > attached to it in regular settings. This gives rise to two questions of > interoperability: horizontal and vertical. > > > > If we follow the categorical scheme the semantical level is, as you also > state in your trikon a second (relative to its first and third). We may > assume a twofold distinction behind it. Lets venture as hypothesis that > Sowa’s work is the firstness of that dyad. I would suggest looking at > Stampers ontology Charts for the secondness of that dyad. The reason being > that Stamper includes actors in his scheme, introduces time and looks at > meanings as affordances. It seems to bridge with the pragmatic level and it > has with the introduction of ‘person’ and ‘role’ the ability to align with > my social layer framework for educational settings. > > > > Note that your Trikon differs in directionality for different roles in IS > design. The project leader serves the pragmatic level, the information > analyst the semantical and the programmer the technical. Your use of the > Trikons enable to sort out the directionalities and the order they ought to > be put in. My use enables an inspection of the views on that matter in > actual practice in terms of more or less. So, together we have a kind of > control system if we design Trikons for the other levels too. In essence I > think we need six. State is a sign with three relata and the effect is a > sign with three relata of which one enters the interpretation process of > the other depending on the goal that reigns the process. > > > > This is an interesting remark you cite from Sowa: > > The point is the UF is primarily intended as a framework for communication > among potentially (or actually) incompatible systems. The major > inconsistencies arise at the level of axioms, which none of these systems > would accept from one another. But they can usually accept lower-level > facts without creating any conflict. > > > > It is supported in my research at the social level. A mother with Hindu > background typed her sun as an ‘old soul’, a common name for children with > certain a-typical traits in het culture. The officials talk DSM and look > for terms like autism or attention deficit. At the same time, when asked > they agreed on multiple characteristics, only diverging for context > sensitive responses (Home vs school). > > > > Still, I had to deal with the Platonic (mayeutica) element inherent in the > mothers world view as it is opposed to the far more Deweyan didactics of > pofessionals. > > > > Best, > > > > Auke > > > > > > *Van:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *Verzonden:* zaterdag 30 maart 2019 18:35 > *Aan:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Onderwerp:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce .. and its importance > > > > Auke, Edwina, Dan, List, > > > > Auke wrote: > > > > AvB: I shifted from the production of objects made in arts to personal > development and from there to interactions. Resulting in the application of > a semiotically grounded method for conflict resolving in an educational > setting, > https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf (it > is of wider use, I extended the model and used it in a commercial domain). > > > > I find your semiotically grounded work for conflict resolution in and > beyond educational settings of considerable interest. Much of my college > teaching in a philosophy department, of especially creative and critical > thinking, centered on the application of Peirce's semeiotic (and especially > his pragmatism) to conflict resolution, problem solving, etc. But in > workshops and papers I have also addressed its application to other > matters, for example, interoperability in the use of internet technology > here: > > > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/InteropArisbe.pdf > > > > My friend and colleague, Aldo de Moor (with whom I co-authored a paper > along with Mary Keeler), also used Peircean principles in developing his > consulting firm, CommunitySense > > https://www.communitysense.nl > > many of these principles gleaned from his years of attending John > Sowa's/Mary Keeler's ICCS conferences, listening to, reading and writing > papers, giving and auditing talks, and organizing and participating in > seminars either about or related to Peirce's work. For a time he was quite > actively using Sowa's Conceptual Graphs (built on Peirce's EGs) in his > work. With all this in mind, I'm going to forward your paper to him, Auke. > You continued: > > > > AvB: For example, everybody reading the Springer *Quality of service* text > will see that I am inspired by Gary R’s Trikonic, which I class as > theoretical. Without that work I would never have imagined to try to > incorporate it in my application. It proved gold because it enables me to > have participants in my method explicate their position in such a way that > contestants in a conflict can compare their differences in a systematic > way. > > > > I'm gratified that my Trikonic inspired your work. Occasionally I'll > receive an off-list note or link telling me how that work is being used in > a context I'd never imagined it being used in (although tricategorial > thinking by its very nature ought to be, in my view, applicable to any > number of fields). > > > > So, I agree with you, Edwina, and Dan that, as Dan wrote: > > > > DE: Always the point was to use his ideas to do empirical work. > > > > And as Auke somewhat metaphorically wrote: > > > > AvB: ". . .in the end, it must be the fruit of application that proves the > worth of the tree. > > > > Or as Edwina put it, Peirce's pragmatism concerns: > > > > ET: ". . .the powerful functionality of his analytic framework when used > in examining and explaining our real world, its operation and our > interactions with that world. : > > > > Yet, as I see it, there remains considerable work yet remaining for > developing and explicating Peirce's theories and this includes refining, as > it were, with an eye especially to its pragmatic use, his terminology. > After all, as Auke just wrote: > > > > AvB: . . .one pins down an conceptual infrastructure with the help of > ‘terms and their relationship’. > > > > And, while I found Dan's overgrown beanstalk metaphor spot on, I would > tend to strongly agree with Auke's conclusion regarding Peirce's > terminology. > > > > AvB: . . . I like to be able to inspect that framework as to its build [I > take this to mean, "how it's constructed"?] and for that I find the > technical term distinctions that Peirce made very inspiring. / / / The > focus is on the understanding of semiosis, the tools are the technical > terms. Its good to keep inspecting and comparing ones tools. > > > > As I've repeatedly said in this forum over the years, it seems to me that > there is no good reason why work in one should exclude work in the other; > that is, there is no reason why the development of theory (I, for example, > am very interested in the possible development of Peirce's phenomenology > and technical terminology will most certainly play a part in that) and > practice (as suggested by the examples Auke, Dan, and Edwina offered) can't > operate side by side if not quite hand in hand. In my opinion hostility to > one or ignoring one are equally unwise because finally unbalanced. While it > may be necessary to concentrate on one and not the other at any given time > (and this is something Peirce strongly suggested and was, indeed, his > practice), in my view both are essential. > > > > Best, > > > > Gary > > > > *Gary Richmond* > > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > > *Communication Studies* > > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:43 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dan, Edwina, List, > > > > I agree with Dan and Edwina with an *however* in favor of work on the > semiotic engine and its make up in the technical terms that shy off the > general public. > > > > Since I started analyzing design processes of artist in the late 80’íes I > tried to combine an empirical bend with an interest of modelling the > situation graphically in technical semiotical terms. The general scheme Dan > and Edwina point to (and as I understand it in my own undoubtedly very > personal way, which itself evolves along the way) functioning as the hard > core of the research program. I shifted from the production of objects > made in arts to personal development and from there to interactions. > Resulting in the application of a semiotically grounded method for conflict > resolving in an educational setting, > https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-55355-4_3.pdf > (it is of wider use, I extended the model and used it in a commercial > domain). > > > > However: This I could only do because I always tried to model semiosis in > semiotic terms. And, because others on this list, and elsewhere (Sarbo, > Farkas), were trying to come to grips with the technical side of semiotics. > > For example, everybody reading the Springer *Quality of service* text > will see that I am inspired by Gary R’s Trikonic, which I class as > theoretical. Without that work I would never have imagined to try to > incorporate it in my application. It proved gold because it enables me to > have participants in my method explicate their position in such a way that > contestants in a conflict can compare their differences in a systematic > way. I leave out the valuable influence of many others on this list. > > > > It must be an interplay between both interests. It is also important to > try to model the process of interpretation in semiotic terms for its own > sake. The key to that in my take is showing how the sign aspects are > related to the interpretants, Peirce distinguishes, when a sign is > inscribed in a sheet in its actual state. In that respect he left an > interesting, still incomplete and as to its constituent pieces debated > puzzle. > > > > But of course, in the end, it must be the fruit of application that proves > the worth of the tree. > > > > Best Auke > > > > > > > > *Van:* Dan Everett <[email protected]> > *Verzonden:* zaterdag 30 maart 2019 14:55 > *Aan:* [email protected] > *CC:* [email protected] > *Onderwerp:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce > > > > I agree with Edwina . Peirce himself left strong indications that some of > his finer terminological distinctions were likely to be unimportant for > research purposes, which was his main concern. > > > > Always the point was to use his ideas to do empirical work. > > > > The kind of article that Edwina links to is a beautiful example of the > kind of thing that would have really interested Peirce. > > > > I think of Peircean terminology as a beanstalk he planted. It grew far too > large in many ways. But the science, the math, the logic, these are the > things of true lasting importance. > > > > Dan > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Mar 30, 2019, at 9:45 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > In my view, the basis of Peirce is not which term is to be used when and > where - although I acknowledge that such a descriptive outline can be > fascinating for some - but my view is that Peirce is really 'all about > pragmatics'; i.e., the powerful functionality of his analytic framework > when used in examining and explaining our real world, its operation and our > interactions with that world. This analytic framework - which functions > regardless of the terms used - is, to me, 'the basic Peirce' - and can be > of great insight in many disciplines. > > Here is an example. My minimal computer skills didn't allow me to copy > more than once - so, I've left out the vital title and authors. It's in the > online journal Entropy. The link below should get anyone interested to the > site. My point is NOT to open discussion on the actual article - but to > show how the Peircean analytic framework, which to me, consists of that > dynamic triad [O-R-I] with its subsets and the powerful three categories - > is the basic pragmatic infrastructure of our entire world. > > The article below is about information dynamics - and - note the terms of > 'majority-logic decoding' [another term for 3ns???], and 'single unit > transformations' [2ns???]...and entropy [1ns??] ….And non-equilibrium > dynamics [the triadic semiosic process??] > > ""We investigate the performance of majority-logic decoding in both > reversible and finite-time information erasure processes performed on > macroscopic bits that contain N microscopic binary units. While we show > that for reversible erasure protocols single-unit transformations are more > efficient than majority-logic decoding, the latter is found to offer > several benefits for finite-time erasure processes: Both the minimal > erasure duration for a given erasure and the minimal erasure error for a > given erasure duration are reduced, if compared to a single unit. > Remarkably, the majority-logic decoding is also more efficient in both the > small-erasure error and fast-erasure region. These benefits are also > preserved under the optimal erasure protocol that minimizes the dissipated > heat. Our work therefore shows that majority-logic decoding can lift the > precision-speed-efficiency trade-off in information erasure processes. View > Full-Text <https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/21/3/284/htm> > > *Keywords: *finite-time information erasure; majority-logic decoding; > nonequilibrium thermodynamics finite-time information erasure > <https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=finite-time%20information%20erasure>; > majority-logic > decoding <https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=majority-logic%20decoding>; > nonequilibrium > thermodynamics > <https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=nonequilibrium%20thermodynamics> > > > > Edwina > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
