Auke, I am so sorry to read that you broke your arm! May it completely heal--and quickly.
Thanks for the link to your paper which I will look at later today. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 6:00 AM Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, list, > > > > I just broke my arm, so I’ll keep it short. > > For Stampers ladder see: > > > https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6e1e/b1d74909a117c71d89e8c697c382c7ab7137.pdf > > > > With regard to your interesting remark about my typology. Imagine a trikon > with at the corner the woman. You take me to mean to score on the edge in > the corners. While the power of my use of trikons is that they allow of > more and less. At some point from the central point in the direction of the > relevant corner a score can be made. This feat makes getting the others > vision in negotiation possible. I tried to hint at that in the Tom Short > part. It is all about relative differences. > > > > Best, > > > > auke > > > > > > *Van:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *Verzonden:* woensdag 3 april 2019 6:38 > *Aan:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Onderwerp:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce .. and its importance > > > > 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 .
