I find it helpful to use "binary" as an adjective when nominalism is meant. I write mainly for popular consumption. Mainly on Twitter. The reason is that more understand it in context. Nominalism is less accessable. We live in a binary world beset by what inhibits and rejects triadic thinking. As time passes binary will denote a rejected form of looking at things consciously. I am responding to your note about the pervasiveness of nominalism.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 10:32 AM Mary Libertin <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > > P-listers, > > Hi! The discussion below about Stamper’s Ladder brings to mind an > excellent article “Levels of Representation”: > https://www.lehigh.edu/~mhb0/levels.html. I am working on the space of > representation and the space of representionality (related to *levels* of > representation) in understanding fiction (and understanding, God knows, > reality). I find this article interesting. I’m astounded by the levels one > must continually become aware of to be semiotically literate. More > generally, I’m struck by the depths of nominalism in our world, a subject > worth tying into the current one. > > In relation to the more recent posts about terminology, I’m reminded of > Peirce’s own tenacious efforts to differentiate his ideas, scrupulously > conscious of past and future use of terms. I’m thinking of Peirce's > redefining the term *pragmatism* to *pragmaticism* to separate his ideas > from others, especially FCS Schiller’s works on pragmatism which attacked > Peirce. See FCS Schiller’s collection of essays *Humanism*, a word he > used to differentiate his meaning from others, especially Peirce’s. Any use > of a word acquires its meaning from context and the direction the meaning > will ultimately tend towards. The creation of the present context of the > meaning of a word involves both theory and praxis. It is the relationship > between the two, theory and praxis, that is more important than either one > alone. Peirce used the term “pragmatism” to inquire about its connection to > science, biology, physics, chemistry, logic and the list goes on. And he > applied his ideas in these fields to help him understand the field in > relation to his ideas about the theoretical “pragmatism”. So, in a sense, > both sides of the current debate on Peirce-list are “right.” Understanding > theory and understanding its use are related. I actually understand James > Joyce’s writing because of Peirce. They both were encyclopedists. The > reverse is true too. I wonder if it is even possible to understand the > meaning of a word without knowing how and when it could be used to greatest > affect. > > I hope this makes sense to you. Thanks! > > Mary Libertin > > On Apr 3, 2019, at 12:38 AM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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.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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
