[peirce-l] Re: Dennett

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Dear Joe,It may satisfy you then to know that yesterday on conclusion I wrote the following in that part of my book that refers to the Kant and Peirce quotes we discussed:"Clearly, this is an integrative view and appears to place epistemological primacy in signs. However, a broader familiarity with their literature leads us to believe that neither had refined the question as sharply as Rudolf Carnap. If they had done so, they may well have agreed."With respect,StevenOn Sep 8, 2006, at 2:18 PM, Joseph Ransdell wrote:...   I'm not sure, for that reason, that Steven is right in opting for one of the two options he mentions:  it seems to me that Peirce is going to come out in favor of both, though there may perhaps be good reason in this or that context of application to regard one of the two is most profitably regarded as the starting point for that particular purpose. 
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Dennett

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Dear Jeffrey and Jim,I do not believe that comparing theories by abstracting their general statements about reality is sufficient. Dennett's theater of the mind argument argues against the homunculus and the theater.IMHO, Dennett makes arguments against which Peirce would rebel fiercely - in both its content and methodology.  In particular, I do not see Peirce accepting heterophenomonology which argues naively that being objective is the best we can do in science. Dennett does not take experience seriously as a phenomenon of the world, and therein lies the core of the problem - which is theoretical and has more to do with his ability to reason than it does with objective observation. In short, Dennett simply denies his ability to make any observation.With respect,Steven On Sep 8, 2006, at 7:43 AM, Jim Piat wrote:Jeffrey Grace wrote: >>It struck me as Peirceian because, if I'm not mistaken, Peirce denied that there was such a thing as "introspection".  He also seemed to affirm the idea that individuals are "less real" than generality... or rather that all individuals are instances of general categories and therefore less real as individuals.  I also get the impression that what we call mind or subjective experience is more objective or public than we realize... and this seems to coincide with Dennett's heterophenomenology...the idea that an objective observer might be able to read someone's subjective experience better than the subject him/herself>>. Dear, Jeffrey, I can't find the Justice Holmes quote about the plain meaning of words vs one's subjective intent that I thought was so apt to your comments  -- but do want to say I think you make a very good point.  In fact, recently I was thinking about Dennett's homunculus/theater of the mind metaphor in conjunction with the  "infinite regression" criticism sometimes leveled against Peirce theory of signs.  My idea was that a theater of the mind need only go three levels deep to cover all the possiblities (but that's for another discussion and only tangentially related to the point you are making).  Just now I merely want to say that I think you capture something very important about Peirce's views and also maybe something about Denett's that he may not realize himself.  Surely Peirce's ideas on pragmatism gave impetus to the objective thrust that so captured law, psychology and philosophy in the early 1900s.  And Dennett is indebted to this tradition. All said with respect and admiration for the counterpoints of Steven and Gary.  That's part of what I find so appealing and impressive about Peirce -- that he identified both what is best and what is worst in behaviorism.   Cheers,Jim Piat---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Epistemological Primacy in Peirce NLC

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

On closer review of Peirce's explanation of Kant's "unity" and his subsequent use of the term, I am now convinced that Carnap and Peirce do not concur and that they have opposing views of what is epistemologically primary. For Peirce it is, unsurprisingly I'd guess, signs. For Carnap signs are epistemologically second, and the total embodied experience is primary. With respect,StevenOn Sep 7, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Joseph Ransdell wrote:Steven:   I append to this message some quotes from Peirce that might be helpful as regards cognitive synthesis, for what it's worth.  (I picked them up from a string search of the CP on "synthesis" and they looked like they might be pertinent.)\
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Dennett

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

My firm response is that I do not see how it could be.With respect,StevenOn Sep 7, 2006, at 5:04 PM, R Jeffrey Grace wrote:Folks,Pardon me if this has been brought up before, but does anyone know if Daniel Dennett's Heterophenomenology, which maintains that all subjective states are ultimately objective states, is influence by Peirce or if this is even something similar to Peirce's view? Thanks for any comments...-- ---   R. Jeffrey Grace   [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.rjgrace.com --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Epistemological Primacy in Peirce NLC

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Thank you Joe, that is helpful - I will have to get myself an electronic version of the CP.This clears up my concern regarding the term "unity" - he is using the definition that he gives to Kant's usage.CP 6.378 (1901)  from  "Unity and Plurality" in Baldwin's Dictionary	378. Unity is divided by Kant into analytical and synthetical. He never defines or explains these terms; but if we remember that, in his use of words, multiplicity of elements is essential to unity, it is easy to see that what he means by analytical unity is the unity of that which is given in its combined state and is analyzed by ordinary reflection. Thus we perceive a fact; and in order to express or think it we analyze it, and the relation of the percept to the elements resulting from this analysis is very inappropriately called analytical unity. ...I still have the problem however that this is vague with respect to my question - both here, and as Peirce observes, in the Critique of Pure Reason. I have not found a clear statement that would indicate either one or the other case I have put forward by either Peirce or Kant.I take the position that the process of analysis/semeiosis is one that, for the life of the organism, reduces the organism's entire experience to conceptions/signs and that this process is one of differentiation - not one of integration.  I find the language of integration in Peirce and Kant and the term unity is, I think, the key to it.Reviewing Kant I can also get the sense that both interpretations are possible and so I am left to conclude on my own review that neither Kant nor Peirce had refined their models to this degree - though they may well have been heading there. I will welcome any correction to this view.Carnap makes a statement about the whole experience being primary because he seeks to justify his use of the autopsychological (solipsism) as the sole basis of his construction in his epistemology:"... we have to proceed from that which is epistemically primary, that is to say, from the "given", i.e., from experiences themselves in their totality and undivided unity..In opposition to the "atomizing" school of thought ... ... the total impression is epistemically primary..." Section 67, LSotW, Rudolf CarnapHe cites "more and more emphasis" from Schlick, esp. Schuppe, Cornelius, Gomperz - of whom I am only really familiar with Schlick. In the same section he also mentions "Reininger makes similar statements and refers to Kant." I don't know Reininger, but this suggests that Carnap was not familiar with Kant at the time.Finally, he refers to Gestalt theory.With respect,StevenOn Sep 7, 2006, at 10:14 AM, Joseph Ransdell wrote:Steven:   I append to this message some quotes from Peirce that might be helpful as regards cognitive synthesis, for what it's worth.  (I picked them up from a string search of the CP on "synthesis" and they looked like they might be pertinent.)
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Epistemological Primacy in Peirce NLC

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Thanks Jim.What do you conclude is Peirce's position in NLC?With respect,StevenOn Sep 7, 2006, at 6:48 AM, Jim Piat wrote:...  I just reread this and your exchange with Patrick, and realize that part of your concern may be whether one's conception of a particular event is differentiated out of the totality of one's experience or if the totality of one's experience is built out of the integration of discrete events.  Viewed in this was I'd say the former.  We differentiate.  We begin by swiming in a continuum of meaning from which we gradually discern and differentiate various nuances.  When I say "we begin by swiming ..."  what I mean is that at some point we awaken biologically and socially to meaning and it is this awaking that I take as the beginning.  Perhaps there is a mode of being beyond what we call meaning -- but what that could possibly mean  is inconceivable to me. Best wishes,Jim Piat---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Epistemological Primacy in Peirce NLC

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Dear Jim,I will use your argument to make a simple observation: You see, Jim has made the second of the two interpretations I observe in NLC - the integrative one.I do not have time currently to slow read NLC - maybe next year.I know Kant is the obvious source for this reference - and I am checking that - are there others?With respect,StevenOn Sep 6, 2006, at 7:04 PM, Jim Piat wrote:Dear Steven, Your questions are very interesting to me as well.    I view the conceptions Peirce speaks of as signs and was just about to write something to that effect to Ben and might yet.  I read Peirce as saying their are various sensations that impinge upon us which we organize in such a way as to constitute signs of objects  -- these signs being conceptions.  And that we ourselves are signs standing for a point of view or object we call ourselves.  I don't mean by this to imply that this is all just a matter of neurology  -- I think coordination with other signs is fundamental to the process by which signs are established and do their work.   So I take it that the most complete organization of being is as signs and that this triadic being (of which we partake as signs) can at least conceptually be understood as comprised of a nesting of signs within which are signs, reactions and qualities.  So I would say primacy belongs to the sign of which quality, reaction (distinction)  and continuity are inherent parts.  Sensations I take to be reactions.  Of course I'm not sure any of what I'm saying here is correct.  I am joining you in calling for a discussion of the New List and the questions it raises.  So, I'm not really clear on the question you are asking (the difference between the two interpretations you are putting forth),  but I think the theory Peirce is referring to is the work of Kant in his critique of Pure Reason but I'm not at all sure.   In any case if you are taking on The New List paragraph by paragraph and are interested in discussing each paragraph as you go I'd like to join you and hope others will as well   --- I've been hoping for a systematic review of this work on the list for some time.  It would be very helpful to me. Best wishes,Jim Piat From: Steven Ericsson-ZenithTo: Peirce Discussion ForumSent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:34 PMSubject: [peirce-l] Epistemological Primacy in Peirce NLCDear List,I want to make sure that I have interpreted Peirce correctly from his statements in On A New List of Categories (NLC). I am comparing this argument with the notion of epistemological primacy put forward by Rudolf Carnap in his The Logical Structure of the World.In the first paragraphs of NLC Peirce says:(CP1.545) Sec. 1. This paper is based upon the theory already established, that the function of conceptions is to reduce the manifold of sensuous impressions to unity, and that the validity of a conception consists in the impossibility of reducing the content of consciousness to unity without the introduction of it. (CP1.546) Sec. 2. This theory gives rise to a conception of gradation among those conceptions which are universal. For one such conception may unite the manifold of sense and yet another may be required to unite the conception and the manifold to which it is applied; and so on.Here are my questions:Carnap argues that the entire experience of an individual holds epistemological primacy. This could be taken to concur with Peirce's argument in CP1.545 but there appear to be two interpretations possible.The source of my doubt is Peirce's use of the term "unity" in the above paragraph and his comments in the following paragraph. I want to be sure that I understand how he is using the term "unity." He may mean that concepts are differentiated in the landscape of experience and that the "manifold of sensuous impressions" is a whole and not constituted of distinctions, that distinctions in that "manifold" are what he calls "the function of conceptions." These distinctions fit my definition of "signs" and so an interpretation of CP1.545 could read that the "function of conceptions" are signs (i.e., differentiated experiences).An alternative point of view would argue that Peirce is saying the opposite of what I have said before and that he means that distinct "sensuous impressions" are brought to together as a function of conceptions.  In this last case he would need an integrative mechanism for semeiosis and give epistemological primacy to "conceptions." This provides significant problems.Finally, where is the theory "already established" to which Peirce refers - in his own work or is he referring to someone else?Sincerely,Steven--Dr. Steven Ericsson-ZenithINSTITUTE for ADVANCED SCIENCE & ENGINEERINGSunnyvale, Californiahttp://iase.info---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Epistemological Primacy in Peirce NLC

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Dear Patrick,Thank you for your response.The line you quote of mine below is, in fact, inconsistent with Carnap's view - and that would suggest from what you say that the ontologies of Carnap and Peirce - both of which are weak in any case - are indeed consistent with respect to this matter.By "ontologies" I have assumed that you mean the ontological basis of their epistemology.Let me restate the case more clearly.There are two ways to view epistemological primacy. Either signs (i.e., individuated experiences) are primary, or there is a basis of signs that is primary. This will depend upon your model. If your model is that signs are the function of an integrative process of distinct experiences you will tend to argue the first case. If your model is that signs are the differentiation of experience within the context of the whole, you will tend to prefer the second case.Snatching a paragraph from my book, my position is as follows: "The entire experience of an organism has epistemological primacy; that is, our particular conceptions are the product of differentiation within the total content of experience. Physiologically, the embodiment of knowledge therefore does not require the integration of distinct embodiments but rather requires the differentiation of experience within the embodiment as a whole." In others words - your model of semeiosis can either require an integrative function or a differentiating function. I certainly argue the case for the latter, as does Carnap, I thought that Peirce did and I am still unsure, and perhaps Kant did - I need to check, and while I am at it I will check Locke and Hume too. Differentiation is compatible with Carnap's position in LSotW and I had taken it to also be compatible with Peirce - except that when rereading the source material while checking references today I saw that both interpretations were possible in what he had said there. His use of the term "unity" confuses me.The "induction problem" is a completely unrelated issue since it has more to do with the prediction model. My respect for both Carnap and Popper, however, precludes me from believing that they missed much at all in their considerations - even of Peirce. So I think it is a question of emphasis only. Peirce was right in my view to empathize abduction.With respect,StevenOn Sep 6, 2006, at 7:34 PM, Patrick Sullivan wrote: Been awhile since I’ve worked with this stuff, but there is a fundamental difference between ontologies in Carnap and Peirce that will inform how each discusses the relationship between experience and knowledge.  The statement below would be far more in line with the nominalism behind Carnap, and inconsistent with Peirce’s realism.  The reduction of “the manifold of sensuous impressions to unity” would be a function of continuity, of real generality in experience, driven by an inferential theory of cognition at the level of knowledge.  The “gradiations” among concepts reflects the iterative, transitive nature of the categories via thirdness (in later essays for example, why there is no “problem of induction” for Peirce— Carnap missed that one, too, along with Popper, regarding Peirce).  The “theory already established” would be Kant.  So, view things through the difference in ontologies, and follow the realist thread.   On 9/6/06 7:34 PM, "Steven Ericsson-Zenith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:  An alternative point of view would argue that Peirce is saying the opposite of what I have said before and that he means that distinct "sensuous impressions" are brought to together as a function of conceptions.    --  Patrick F. Sullivan, Ph.D. Information Security Governance 939 North Graham Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46219 317-352-1362 (voice & fax), 317-752-5316 (mobile) [EMAIL PROTECTED]  Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential, and may be privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, or conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email, and delete this message and any attachments from your system.  Thank you.  --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Epistemological Primacy in Peirce NLC

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

Dear List,I want to make sure that I have interpreted Peirce correctly from his statements in On A New List of Categories (NLC). I am comparing this argument with the notion of epistemological primacy put forward by Rudolf Carnap in his The Logical Structure of the World.In the first paragraphs of NLC Peirce says:(CP1.545) Sec. 1. This paper is based upon the theory already established, that the function of conceptions is to reduce the manifold of sensuous impressions to unity, and that the validity of a conception consists in the impossibility of reducing the content of consciousness to unity without the introduction of it. (CP1.546) Sec. 2. This theory gives rise to a conception of gradation among those conceptions which are universal. For one such conception may unite the manifold of sense and yet another may be required to unite the conception and the manifold to which it is applied; and so on.Here are my questions:Carnap argues that the entire experience of an individual holds epistemological primacy. This could be taken to concur with Peirce's argument in CP1.545 but there appear to be two interpretations possible.The source of my doubt is Peirce's use of the term "unity" in the above paragraph and his comments in the following paragraph. I want to be sure that I understand how he is using the term "unity." He may mean that concepts are differentiated in the landscape of experience and that the "manifold of sensuous impressions" is a whole and not constituted of distinctions, that distinctions in that "manifold" are what he calls "the function of conceptions." These distinctions fit my definition of "signs" and so an interpretation of CP1.545 could read that the "function of conceptions" are signs (i.e., differentiated experiences).An alternative point of view would argue that Peirce is saying the opposite of what I have said before and that he means that distinct "sensuous impressions" are brought to together as a function of conceptions.  In this last case he would need an integrative mechanism for semeiosis and give epistemological primacy to "conceptions." This provides significant problems.Finally, where is the theory "already established" to which Peirce refers - in his own work or is he referring to someone else?Sincerely,Steven--Dr. Steven Ericsson-ZenithINSTITUTE for ADVANCED SCIENCE & ENGINEERINGSunnyvale, Californiahttp://iase.info 
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Christop Koch's science / religion paper

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

For those curious about the paper I mentioned previously - you can find 
it here :


http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/religion-06.pdf

With respect,
Steven

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Neuroquantology Journal

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Dear Patrick,

My thanks for your interesting response.

At the start of the 20th Century it was, perhaps, still acceptable for 
Peirce and Whitehead to contend that "that holding religious beliefs and 
maintaining a responsible and coherent scientific attitude were fully 
compatible with one another."  Although, Whitehead was more committed to 
this view and I suspect that Peirce would have been easily persuaded 
from it.


At the start of the 21st Century I see no good cause for accepting it, 
if by it we mean adhering to the religious conventions of the past in 
any form.


Hypotheses are one of two classes of merit.  The first are the useful 
hypotheses.  They are constructive and they make falsifiable predictions 
- they are those that Popper and Peirce would seek.  The second class, 
all other hypotheses, are those that are not constructive and do not 
make falsifiable predictions.


Science pursues the former and rapidly dismisses the latter.  It is 
certainly foolish today to base research programs and public science 
expenditure on premises that clearly fall into the latter class - as is 
happening today in the USA and EU.


The provisional nature of scientific hypothesis does not excuse or 
condone the acceptance of hypotheses clearly of the second kind - and 
the "market of ideas" is not served by including them.


A belief in God by any inherited convention falls manifestly into the 
second class.  Even if the proposed God turned up and said "I did it" 
this would still not be science since a priori predictions based on the 
premise are not falsifiable.  Science simply cannot take God's word for 
it.  If there is such a God then science is simply a pragmatic 
understanding God's will. 

This view would still not excuse the intellectual laziness that is the 
invention of emergence and identity theories - or change the irrational 
nature of an intuition that a God exists in the first place.  It does 
not block inquiry to insist on sound premises and good reason.


This is not to say that there is not something unknown and equally 
remarkable about the universe.  But if there is, and I certainly believe 
that there is in the unexplained presence of experience in the world,  
then it is for science to discover.


My reference to Christophe Koch is meant with the greatest respect -  I 
admire what he has written and that he has written openly about his 
beliefs.  And my observation remains a valid one.  Scientists that 
adhere to any conventional notion of God, of there being something 
"extra" to the universe beyond science, are necessarily predisposed to 
accept the magic of today's emergence and identity theories. 

Mid 20th century logicians threw the baby out with the bath water by 
ignoring experience and not taking it seriously as a phenomenon (as 
Peirce did).  Their dismissal of it has left a hole that has been filled 
by the very same irrational propositions they sought to counter.


With respect,
Steven




Patrick Coppock wrote:

Hi Steven,



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Neuroquantology Journal

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Crick's "Astonishing Hypothesis" (the name of Crick's book on the 
subject) is emergence and identity theory - and the continuing focus of 
Crick's younger partner (Crick himself died recently) Christophe Koch at 
CalTech is neuronal according to Koch's recent book (as I recall). 

All theories dependent on emergence and identity are essentially appeals 
to magic - despite the wide popularity of the argument (including the 
popular appeals by Wolfram, Kurzweil et al.).


Koch is fairly religious (Catholic) - and has recently written about his 
religion on his web site - and without making aspersions upon his 
integrity I do find that a number of scientists in the field that are 
prepared to accept such magic are also religious.  As a result they may, 
in fact, be predisposed to the argument that "God did it."


My own view is that these appeals to magic as the product of 
intellectual laziness. :-)


With respect,
Steven

Jim Piat wrote:






Make of that what you will :-)

With respect,
Steven



Dear Steven,

I think Crick of DNA fame was also seeking consciousness in the 
microtubials.  What troubles me most about the search for the neural 
basis of consciousness is our lack of a coherent and satisfying 
working definition of consciousness. I doubt we will find the 
neurological basis of something we can't identify in the first place.  
The effort begs the question. Moreover neurons may be a necessary 
without being a sufficient condition for consciousness.


Just one layman's opinion.

Cheers,
Jim Piat
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Neuroquantology Journal

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

The Neuroquantology Journal invited me sometime ago to submit my paper 
on the limits of discovery in quantum physics, so I know something of 
their history.


It was started as an online journal only by Sultan Tarlaci of Turkey, 
whom I believe is an academic, at the time of the 2003 Quantum Mind 
conference.  Stuart Hammeroff of the University of Arizona was involved 
in the founding. 

Hammeroff and Roger Penrose are responsible for the quantum model of 
Orchestrated Objective Reduction (OOR) which sees the mind as the 
product of a quantum computation influenced by Penrose's model of 
quantum gravity.  To quote Hammeroff, "It's in the microtubials."


Hammeroff is shown on the list of advisers and I would guess that it was 
he that specified the "focus and scope" of the journal since he is an 
anesthesiologist.


I also recognize Brian Josephson.  Josephson is a Nobel Laurette, well 
known to anyone who has been in the semiconductor industry (as I have) 
for his invention of the "Josephson junction."  Josephson currently runs 
a parapsychology lab at Cambridge University where he looks for quantum 
proof of telepathy and other psychic phenomena.


Make of that what you will :-)

With respect,
Steven




Irving Anellis wrote:


Joseph Ransdell asked about the "Neuroquantology" journal.



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

I do not doubt the merit of the exercise - only the suggested source of 
funds.  Individual scholars on well understood "tracks" can get funding 
from a variety of sources - or so I am led to believe.  Project funding 
for something like this probably needs to come from within an 
institution that understands the merit.


With respect,
Steven




Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen wrote:

Well I am pretty sure that a better understanding of Peirce can and will
lead to raising the standards of public education. It already has in some
aspects of education. Think it would not be hard to make some convincing
discourse about importance of Peirce's discourses for past and current and
future society.

Like I stated in previous mail, even if Bill Gates Foundation is not willing
to help, there will probably be other sources. But, like I said, it would
first be needed in my opinion to at least have real figures about costs for
digitalization. Then some good preparation about what to say and how to say
so (some good rhetoric) to get the money. And this is not about some
arbitrary scholarly endeavors it is about very relevant philosophical
material that will help lots of intellectuals to improve society and also
education. 


I myself will also concentrate a lot on getting my PhD finished as soon as
possible. And mention the relevance of CS Peirce's thoughts in it. This does
not appear to be that helpful, but I just guess it will because of the huge
relevance and impact of my findings. But well, we'll see ;-).

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Steven Ericsson Zenith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 23:36

Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

My understanding is that this would not be a project within the bounds 
of those that interest the Gates Foundation.  The focus there is on 
raising the standards of public education - not arbitrary scholarly 
endeavors.


With respect,

Steven

Joseph Ransdell wrote:
  

Wilfred says::

"I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen."

That's an idea worth investigating, Wilfred, particularly in view  of the 
fact that Bill Gates is presently retiring from active control of

Microsoft 
  
and devoting himself exclusively to his and his wife's philanthropical 
concerns -- then, too, he was a student at Harvard -- and I will see to it



  
that it is investigated.   Foundations usually have an initial filtering 
system that can be checked out for possible entry into an inner sanctum 
where you might be permitted to make your case for support.  It seems to

be 
  

more the exception than the rule for them to leave it open enough for much



  

in the way of purely scholarly projects to be capable of slipping through

at 
  
this time, but there are ways of construing the interest which this 
particular project might have that might find some possibilities there. 
I'll see what I can find out about the prospects and let you know what I 
find out soon.


Joe Ransdell


- Original Message - 
From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen.

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Wilfred and the list:

The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies of photocopies of the
manuscripts which constitute Peirce's Nachlass ("literary remains")


insofar
  

as Harvard has possession of them.  They are located in the Harvard


Library,
  

not in the Philosophy Department, and there are 80,000 or more pages of
them, still largely unpublished.  (There are several tens of thousands of
pages more than that elsewhere, by the say, but the bulk of the
philosophical stuff is largely in the Harvard collections.  Since a lot of
the manuscripts have been rotting away for years, the librarians aren't
eager for people to poke around in them and there has to be some special
   

[peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

For completeness:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/ForGrantSeekers/EligibilityAndGuidelines/

Steven

Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:
My understanding is that this would not be a project within the bounds 
of those that interest the Gates Foundation.  The focus there is on 
raising the standards of public education - not arbitrary scholarly 
endeavors.


With respect,

Steven

Joseph Ransdell wrote:

Wilfred says::

"I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then 
where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give 
it a

try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen."

That's an idea worth investigating, Wilfred, particularly in view  of 
the fact that Bill Gates is presently retiring from active control of 
Microsoft and devoting himself exclusively to his and his wife's 
philanthropical concerns -- then, too, he was a student at Harvard -- 
and I will see to it that it is investigated.   Foundations usually 
have an initial filtering system that can be checked out for possible 
entry into an inner sanctum where you might be permitted to make your 
case for support.  It seems to be more the exception than the rule 
for them to leave it open enough for much in the way of purely 
scholarly projects to be capable of slipping through at this time, 
but there are ways of construing the interest which this particular 
project might have that might find some possibilities there. I'll see 
what I can find out about the prospects and let you know what I find 
out soon.


Joe Ransdell


- Original Message - From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then 
where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give 
it a

try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen.

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Wilfred and the list:

The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies of photocopies of the
manuscripts which constitute Peirce's Nachlass ("literary remains") 
insofar
as Harvard has possession of them.  They are located in the Harvard 
Library,


not in the Philosophy Department, and there are 80,000 or more pages of
them, still largely unpublished.  (There are several tens of 
thousands of

pages more than that elsewhere, by the say, but the bulk of the
philosophical stuff is largely in the Harvard collections.  Since a 
lot of

the manuscripts have been rotting away for years, the librarians aren't
eager for people to poke around in them and there has to be some 
special and


persuasive reason to get permission to do so at this time.

They ought, of course, to be digitized with high res color cameras and
special lighting that minimizes the effects of the scanning on them and
plans are supposedly in the offing to do that -- along with a vast 
quantity
of other holdings there in the library which they want to digitize.  
We may

all be dead before they get around to it -- unless, of course, some
benevolent patron with a spare million dollars or so does what he or she
ought to be doing with his or her money; but you don't find a whole 
lot of

them around these days who don't already have other things they want to
support.  Know anyone smart enough, wealthy enough, and moral enough  to
understand the value of doing this sort of thing for Peirce?  If so 
let me
know and I can assure you it will be done.  Ask the U.S. government 
for it?
Sorry, but what with the need for the manufacture and development of 
ever

more fearsome weapons of mass destruction, for the financing of covert
armies,  and for the destruction of foreign governments in the 
interest of

spreading freedom and religious salvation to the grateful survivors,
American taxpayers -- or at least  their supposed representatives -- 
aren't
much inclined to support such frivolous enterprises as this at this 
time.


But speaking less facetiously, the digitization of the MS material so 
that

the originals can be retired from use and the digitized material made
generally available is an enormous task, far more difficult than one 
might
at first suppose.  One complication that has to be taken into account 
stems

from the fact that the people who were supposed to take good car

[peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

My understanding is that this would not be a project within the bounds 
of those that interest the Gates Foundation.  The focus there is on 
raising the standards of public education - not arbitrary scholarly 
endeavors.


With respect,

Steven

Joseph Ransdell wrote:

Wilfred says::

"I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen."

That's an idea worth investigating, Wilfred, particularly in view  of the 
fact that Bill Gates is presently retiring from active control of Microsoft 
and devoting himself exclusively to his and his wife's philanthropical 
concerns -- then, too, he was a student at Harvard -- and I will see to it 
that it is investigated.   Foundations usually have an initial filtering 
system that can be checked out for possible entry into an inner sanctum 
where you might be permitted to make your case for support.  It seems to be 
more the exception than the rule for them to leave it open enough for much 
in the way of purely scholarly projects to be capable of slipping through at 
this time, but there are ways of construing the interest which this 
particular project might have that might find some possibilities there. 
I'll see what I can find out about the prospects and let you know what I 
find out soon.


Joe Ransdell


- Original Message - 
From: "Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 2:50 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)


I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then where
the electronic switch idea originates from. But I guess we could give it a
try, preferably with lots of names and tittles and so on to make things
happen.

Kind regards,

Wilfred

-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

Wilfred and the list:

The MS pages reproduced here are from photocopies of photocopies of the
manuscripts which constitute Peirce's Nachlass ("literary remains") insofar
as Harvard has possession of them.  They are located in the Harvard Library,

not in the Philosophy Department, and there are 80,000 or more pages of
them, still largely unpublished.  (There are several tens of thousands of
pages more than that elsewhere, by the say, but the bulk of the
philosophical stuff is largely in the Harvard collections.  Since a lot of
the manuscripts have been rotting away for years, the librarians aren't
eager for people to poke around in them and there has to be some special and

persuasive reason to get permission to do so at this time.

They ought, of course, to be digitized with high res color cameras and
special lighting that minimizes the effects of the scanning on them and
plans are supposedly in the offing to do that -- along with a vast quantity
of other holdings there in the library which they want to digitize.  We may
all be dead before they get around to it -- unless, of course, some
benevolent patron with a spare million dollars or so does what he or she
ought to be doing with his or her money; but you don't find a whole lot of
them around these days who don't already have other things they want to
support.  Know anyone smart enough, wealthy enough, and moral enough  to
understand the value of doing this sort of thing for Peirce?  If so let me
know and I can assure you it will be done.  Ask the U.S. government for it?
Sorry, but what with the need for the manufacture and development of ever
more fearsome weapons of mass destruction, for the financing of covert
armies,  and for the destruction of foreign governments in the interest of
spreading freedom and religious salvation to the grateful survivors,
American taxpayers -- or at least  their supposed representatives -- aren't
much inclined to support such frivolous enterprises as this at this time.

But speaking less facetiously, the digitization of the MS material so that
the originals can be retired from use and the digitized material made
generally available is an enormous task, far more difficult than one might
at first suppose.  One complication that has to be taken into account stems
from the fact that the people who were supposed to take good care of his
work after Peirce's death in 1914 -- the people in the philosophy department

at Harvard -- savaged it dreadfully over the course of the many decades when

they were its "stewards", leaving it in appalling disorder by the time it
was finally res

[peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2) (Correction)

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Sorry, on closer inspection that should read:

1. Rhematic, Icon
2. Rhematic,
3/5. Rhematic
4. Indexical
5/8. Legisign
6.
7.
8/3.
9. Legisign
10. Symbolic, Legisign

540.17 highlighs in the same locations:

1. Rhematic, Icon
2. Rhematic,
3/5. Rhematic
4.
5/8. Legisign
6. Indexical
7.
8/3.
9. Legisign
10. Symbolic, Legisign



Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:

Jean-Marc,

The reference is to the ink color - the brown colored text indicated 
in two ways - the rest is in red ink.  The note maker appears to be 
identifying that Peirce used two colors of ink.  The Brown ink calls out:


1. Rhematic, Icon
2. Rhematic,
3/8.
4. Indexical
5. Rhematic
6. Rhematic
7.
8/5. Legisign
9. Legisign
10. Symbolic, Legisign

The numbering is unclear and appears to have been overwritten.  I 
assume the arrows do not indicate relations of any kind.


These color distinctions are reflected by the emboldened text in 
540.17 and the bracketing in 540.27.


With respect,
Steven


Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:

Joseph Ransdell wrote:
 

[image here]

On the high-res picture it is clear that the annotations were added 
afterwards. Compare the line style of the figures and letters (1, 2, 
3, ... B) with Peirce's thicker more irregular feather pen's style. 
The handwriting is differently too compared with other manuscripts.


and why would Peirce write that some words have a brown color?

/JM

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Jean-Marc,

The reference is to the ink color - the brown colored text indicated in 
two ways - the rest is in red ink.  The note maker appears to be 
identifying that Peirce used two colors of ink.  The Brown ink calls out:


1. Rhematic, Icon
2. Rhematic,
3/8.
4. Indexical
5. Rhematic
6. Rhematic
7.
8/5. Legisign
9. Legisign
10. Symbolic, Legisign

The numbering is unclear and appears to have been overwritten.  I assume 
the arrows do not indicate relations of any kind.


These color distinctions are reflected by the emboldened text in 540.17 
and the bracketing in 540.27.


With respect,
Steven


Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:

Joseph Ransdell wrote:
 

[image here]

On the high-res picture it is clear that the annotations were added 
afterwards. Compare the line style of the figures and letters (1, 2, 
3, ... B) with Peirce's thicker more irregular feather pen's style. 
The handwriting is differently too compared with other manuscripts.


and why would Peirce write that some words have a brown color?

/JM

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Fw: What is Category Theory?

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

See:
   http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/category-theory/

Though this may be more useful:
   http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Category.html

I asked at a conference recently why category theory was considered so 
important and the claim was made that it is important because it is our 
most advanced form of mathematics.  It is certainly interesting - but I 
have not made that assessment yet myself.


As to Peirce, I am not sure of a direct connection - there is no obvious 
one - but in so far as he was deeply concerned with the nature of 
relations it would be interesting to note any coincidences, perhaps with 
his relational graphs.


With respect,
Steven



Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Does anybody know anything about category theory in math, which is what the 
book in the forwarded message below is about. What is it?   Does it actually 
have any philosophical interest?  Is it relevant to Peirce?


Joe Ransdell


- Original Message - 
From: "G. Sica" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 10:50 AM
Subject: What is Category Theory?


Please allow me to bring to the attention of list members a recent
publication about the foundations of Category Theory:

WHAT IS CATEGORY THEORY?
Editor: Giandomenico Sica
http://www.polimetrica.com/polimetrica/389/
Price: 30 Euro.
Forwarding and delivery charges are not included in the price.
Publisher: Polimetrica International Scientific Publisher.
Contributions and authors:
Abstract and Variable Sets in Category Theory
(John L. Bell)
Categories for Knotted Curves, Surfaces and Quandles
(Scott Carter)
Introducing Categories to the Practicing Physicist
(Bob Coecke)
Some Implications of the Adoption of Category Theory for Philosophy
(David Corfield)
Sets, Categories and Structuralism
(Costas A. Drossos)
A Theory of Adjoint Functors � with some Thoughts about their
Philosophical Significance
(David Ellerman)
Enriched Stratified Systems for the Foundations of Category Theory
(Solomon Feferman)
Category Theory, Pragmatism and Operations Universal in Mathematics
(Ralf Kr��mer)
What is Category Theory?
(Jean-Pierre Marquis)
Category Theory: an abstract setting for analogy and comparison
(Ronald Brown � Tim Porter)
On Doing Category Theory within Set Theoretic Foundations
(Vidhy��n��th K. Rao)

The best way to purchase this book is to buy it directly from the
publisher's web-site: http://www.polimetrica.com .
I hope you can be interested in this information.
If not, please accept my sincere apologies for the trouble: this is not
a spam message.
Many thanks.

All the best,
Giandomenico Sica


  


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Dear Joe et al.,

Let me add a computer science POV here.  

I think that Joe is right in almost every respect.  However, "Knowledge
Management" is a widely used term and the work in this area is not
entirely academic - IOW, there is a lot of work that has been developed
independent of Universities.  Indeed, I think there is a good case that
in this area most of the work has happened outside of Universities.

Most large corporations undertake knowledge management in their IT
departments and they are served by an array of knowledge management
solutions providers that serve that market.  

Occasionally, those ventures utilize university research but more often
the technologies and the associated theory is developed in house.  I am
confident that somewhere in IBM there is a "knowledge management"
research group that focuses on the issues as they pertain to the
"Fortune 500" companies. I am confident also that Oracle and Microsoft
have research groups that focus on these areas - and I do mean research
groups in the real sense of the word.

True, the visible developments are often faddish and driven by
perceived needs in the market - and all concerned like to dominate the
concept space by introducing new and often irrelevant notions in the
cause of product differentiation and branding.  Ultimately the research
is presented to the world by the marketing departments of these
organizations.  

Without checking, my guess is that the Lotus division of IBM with its
"Notes" product and Documentum - with their product of the same name,
still dominate that field.  SAP would be another company where I would
expect to find products and work ongoing.

In addition, there is a continuous variety of start-ups here in Silicon
Valley that attempt to offer new solutions - and I myself have been a
part of several of them over the years.  More than one of those dealt
with new theories of knowledge management - but that theory has to get
beaten down in the cause of meeting market needs and simplifying the
message.

Within Computer Science there is a very real effort to address the
questions - but Computer Science is a very inevitably a commercial
endeavor.  This conference appear to be a manifestation of some of the
things going on in CS currently. 

Unfortunately, the exposure in computer science to semeiotics and those
foundational issues is limited in my experience.  

Computer scientists tend to see the world in terms of computational
logic and very few of us are tackling the foundations of logic.  Human
Factors (the CS term for some of these issues) as it relates to
Knowledge Management is a field well turned but whose results are
measured by the success or failure of products in the field that have
prematurely attempted to apply the results (and so the contributions
the research can make is now dismissed).  AI as it relates to Knowledge
Management has taken it's knocks too.

David Gelernter at
Yale, whom I have
worked with in the past, (I am thinking of his Life Streams) and others
have proposed a variety of new models over the years.  In variably
someone turns them into products, most of which never make it.  The
streets of Silicon Valley is paved with now worthless patent IP in the
area.  

The whole thing is limiting really because those that do actually
succeed (Google, for example) are locked into a market dynamic that
ultimately limits innovation no matter how hard they try to make real
breakthroughs. True innovation happens rarely, advances are mostly
incremental and stay within market and shareholder expectations. 
Lamentably, there is - in fact - little room for real theoretical
advances in the face of "market inertia" and "it ain't broke."

I would say that Knowledge Management is still a space that is
interesting and begging for something new and startling from an
investors point of view.  However, most successful available solutions,
such as Notes or Documentum do in fact mirror established best
practice, often provided by Library sciences.  There are even a few
extinct technologies - like expert systems - that were supposed to
solve the Knowledge Management problem but failed. Existing solutions
are often considered "good enough" and any new idea has to address the
ROI question before it can get funded.  

For many, the last great step forward in Knowledge Management is XML. 
Before that, relational databases which still today are not really
using the Codd relational model for the most part, as far as I can tell.

Life Streams is a good example of an apparently good new idea with
fatal flaws in practice.  It increases your litigation liability. 
Pragmatics like that are often not appreciate in University research.

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.

With respect,
Steven


Joseph Ransdell wrote:

  Gary, Auke, and Ben:

My 

[peirce-l] On Immediacy

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Dear Joe,

Immediacy is a property of all "metaphysical marks" - marks for which 
intent exists.  Recall that in my model intent is exactly the embodied 
experience in semeiosis of the creator of the mark in its creation.


Immediacy is the description, in a point of semeiosis, of the temporal 
state of the marks, their state of refinement and their potential 
refinement.  Immediacy properties are properties that enable us to make 
quantative statements about the immediacy of a mark.


For example, a motor vehicle has an immediacy described in part by the 
following properties:


   * Date of manufacture.
   * The final state of the manufactured design.
   * Custom modifications since manufacture.
   * The age of the design - elapsed time since design was made.
   * The changes of wear and tear.
   * The current date and time.

Any given motor vehicle is a replica of the original intent whose 
immediacy varies with other replicas according to the changes since 
their replication. 

Books vary in the same way.  For example, I have a copy of Edmund 
Husserl's "Crisis of the European Sciences" currently on my desk from 
the local library.  In addition to the publication date, the 
underscoring and highlighting by negligent students, the written 
comments on the inside cover, the razor cut and removed appendix - are 
all quantative measures of the immediacy of the individual book.


A pristine copy is measured by its publication date, its edition and 
today's date.  We can compare two pristine copies quantatively by this 
information.  The immediacy of a preceding model of our motor vehicle or 
preceding edition of a book is altered by the new model vehicle or new 
edition book.


So much for final products.  These are the simple cases.  A designer or 
author can have a material affect on the immediacy of their product by 
releasing a new vehicle or publishing a new book. 

Immediacy is the property that makes some of us cringe when we see 
movies of 1970's fashions and and 1970's hairstyles.  In other words, 
immediacy is not merely an abstract concept - it is a function in 
semeiosis that materially effects how we apprehend the world and it 
produces a physiological response (our apprehension of it changes our 
characterized experience of the world).


Immediacy in open content development is a greater challenge and a 
rather more complex problem to deal with because change is more rapid 
and difference is more diverse - I speak of the digital mediums we have 
discussed here before - things like Wikipedia, Citizen Journalism 
(perhaps all journalism), and the world wide web in general.


Immediacy properties in these digital domains deal with incomplete 
refinements, the maturity of documents and the impact of various copies 
of indeterminate state and derivatives.  This leads us eventually to the 
questions of authority, identity and transparency that we have addressed 
here before. 

I've done various informal experiments in this domain - by developing 
ideas in documents or forums on line and observing responses, or simply 
by developing any content where rawness and refinement are factors.  
This is not good enough and I do feel that this is an area where the 
design of some good long term experiments and quantification over time 
might allow deeper insight into immediacy effects - it is hard to fund 
this from where I am currently though.


In terms of a review of historical documents, such as those of Peirce, 
very similar challenges exist.  You simply cannot look at the questions 
relating to his use of *representamen* or *sign* without consideration 
of the immediacy properties related to their use if what you are trying 
to achieve is a comprehensive understanding of Peirce.


I will point out - as I have done for Wikipedia in the past - that 
random or incomplete interpretations and even misinterpretations or just 
plain wrongness (caused often by a failure to grasp the immediacy 
properties) can be stimulants for creative thinking that do produce new 
insights and assist in the development of new ideas - by stimulating 
abduction.  Think of it rather like genetic mutation.


Refining such creativity into novel, distinct and useful conceptions is 
rare and difficult. So no one should think that solely by random 
misinterpretation of Peirce that they are likely to uncover new insight.


You can find a list of immediacy properties here:

  http://www.what-it-all-means.com/glossary/immediacy.html

In the nature of immediacy - this entry likely needs review. :-)

I hope that clarifies.

Sincerely,
Steven




Joseph Ransdell wrote:


Steven"

I agree with you in being unable to find what Frances is saying 
intelligible, but I want to take the occasion to ask you what you mean by 
"immediacy", which seems to have a special meaning in your writings which is 
of special importance to you that I don't understand.


Joe Ransdell


---

[peirce-l] Re: Representamens and Signs (was "Design and Semiotics Revisited" was "Peircean elements")

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Dear Gary,

I do resist conflating your views with those of Frances - I do observe, 
however, your strong support for her arguments and the position that she 
takes.


Responding to your questions regarding Ben's proposal of a formal 
"forth." I really cannot respond to Ben's proposal in isolation for two 
reasons.  First, I do not think that I fully comprehend the category 
issues as he states them - but I respect Ben and am prepared to hear him 
out on the matter.  Second, I am de facto a skeptic on all questions of 
natural category in interpretations of Percian semeiotics.  Remember 
that I have not bought into triadism myself - and see something of a 
"hysteria" in the adoption of triadics in both Peirce and those who 
later studied him.


I have read Ben's remarks on the matter - but I am not clear on what 
purpose it (a forth) serves or how it is *useful.*


With respect,
Steven



Gary Richmond wrote:


Steven,

Frances and I have very different views on most everything concerned 
with Peirce. I hope you will resist conflating our views.


Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:

Mostly I think the deconstruction of Peirce's writings concerning 
representamen / sign is a waste of time and simply unable to produce 
any meaningful result.



You have a right to your opinion as to what is or is not "a waste of 
time." Perhaps I don't think this is a crucial issue myself, but it 
was singled out by Joe, and pursued to some extent by Frances and others.


This message by Frances simply makes no sense to me.  How do you, 
Frances or Gary, propose a representamen that is prior to "all 
existent objects and 'signs' and semiosis" - this assertion makes no 
sense ontologically or epistemologically.



Well, the message by Frances makes some sense to me. But, again, the 
message reflects Frances's position--not mine. However, as I 
mentioned, there are questions related to the early cosmos which are 
not semeiotic according to Peirce, although they do have at least a 
(proto-)categorial structure. I also mentioned the question of bio- 
and physio-semiotics, neither of which has held much interest for me, 
although I am reading Sebeok's book referenced in my last post in 
order "to keep up with the literature.".


Indeed, even if I consider such an argument viable, any such 
representamen would not be accessible to apprehension.  It leads me 
to believe that there is a misunderstanding in Frances argument 
concerning the very nature of semeiosis.



Let us see. . . (you are apparently not alone in holding this 
viewpoint; while I think that particular errors in her understanding 
will eventually be corrected as she seems to be a person capable of 
learning in the Peircean sense. I would like to add that  we ALL err 
from time to time, and this is especially possible in setting forth 
abductions. But these grand pronouncements of her ineptitude, etc. are 
certainly tending to irk me. What do you think of Ben's hypothesis of 
a fourth semeiotic element? Is that a "misunderstanding. . .concerning 
the very nature of semeiosis" or would you be willing to argue for it?


I think you are both reading too much into Peirce's exploration - 
which he clearly testifies to.



Again, I would appreciate your not conflating our positions. Mainly I 
have been arguing Frances's right to present ideas certainly not as 
radical as, say, Ben's, who has not met with the kind of criticism 
that has been leveled at Frances.


Consider the two terms a property of the immediacy of his manifest 
refinement (his analysis).



Certainly you have a point here. On the other hand, there may be a 
subtle distinction which is important to analyze.


Gary

---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Representamens and Signs (was "Design and Semiotics Revisited" was "Peircean elements")

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Dear List,

I was hoping to keep out of this. Mostly I think the deconstruction of 
Peirce's writings concerning representamen / sign is a waste of time and 
simply unable to produce any meaningful result. 

This message by Frances simply makes no sense to me.  How do you, 
Frances or Gary, propose a representamen that is prior to "all existent 
objects and 'signs' and semiosis" - this assertion makes no sense 
ontologically or epistemologically.


Indeed, even if I consider such an argument viable, any such 
representamen would not be accessible to apprehension.  It leads me to 
believe that there is a misunderstanding in Frances argument concerning 
the very nature of semeiosis.


I think you are both reading too much into Peirce's exploration - which 
he clearly testifies to.  Consider the two terms a property of the 
immediacy of his manifest refinement (his analysis).


With respect,
Steven

Frances Kelly wrote:


Gary...

Thanks for your search and post.
As you implied, the distinction attempted to be made by me is in deed
the difference between "representamens" that are broader and prior to
all else in the world, including existent objects and "signs" and
semiosis, and that are independent of thought and mind and sense and
life itself. The reason for my making this attempt is simply the
seeming distinction made by Peirce himself in his many passages quoted
here. Agreeably, it may certainly prove useful to distinguish between
"signs" conveying notions to human minds and those "representamens"
which can not or need not do so. My train of thought on this matter
may of course be way off track, in that there may be no substantial
distinction at all. The Peircean writings recently posted to the list
by you on the terms "representamen" and "representamens" and
"representamina" will be read by me in detail for some insight.

-Frances



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Design and Semiotics Revisited (...new thread from "Peircean elements" topic)

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

I must confess to being a little bewildered by Gary's strongly worded 
rhetoric - nothing against Ben or Frances but the case does seem to be 
overstated fro my POV.


With respect,
Steven


Gary Richmond wrote:


Frances, Joe, Ben, List,

...




---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Peirce invented the "electric switching computer?"

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

My thanks Thomas, can you please
clarify to which document "W5" refers.

Thanks,
Steven


Thomas Riese wrote:

Letter Peirce to Marquand, L 269, 30 December 1886 in W5, p.422,423
  
  
Thomas.
  
  
  
  
On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:30:30 +0100, Steven Ericsson Zenith 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  
  
  Dear List,


There is a very nice and copyright free bio of Peirce from NOAA that I

have copied into Panopedia for reference here:


http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#NOAA_Giants_of_Science


The article is unattributed and makes the following claim, that Peirce 
was:


   " ... first to conceive the design and theory of an electric

switching computer"


Now, I am not familiar with this claim - can anyone justify it with

references?  Better still, can anyone identify the author?


With respect,

Steven

/

/



---

Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]


  
  
  
  
---
  
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Peirce invented the "electric switching computer?"

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Dear List,

There is a very nice and copyright free bio of Peirce from NOAA that I
have copied into Panopedia for reference here:

  
http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/Charles_Sanders_Peirce#NOAA_Giants_of_Science

The article is unattributed and makes the following claim, that Peirce
was:

   " ... first to conceive the design and theory of an electric
switching computer"

Now, I am not familiar with this claim - can anyone justify it with
references?  Better still, can anyone identify the author?

With respect,
Steven



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Are there authorities on authority?

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

ng assessment.)  If
it has never so much as occurred to us to put something or someone into
question as regards its reliability we cannot be faulted for trusting
it, nor can we be faulted for trust when it follows upon an intuitive
assessment provided the trust is not given because we are deliberately
turning away from recognition of obvious reason for distrust (i.e.
provided we are not "in denial" of the obvious, as we say).  Trust
should be presumptive and normal, and for the same reason that optimism
should be presumptive and normal.  A life that takes no chances is
unlikely to be a life worth living.  This is, I think, what William
James was wanting to get at in "The Will to Believe" but failed to do
so by confusing the right to believe with the will to believe. 
   
  On the other
hand, when someone lays claim to authority, whether it be their own
authority or somebody else's, we have good reason to deny it for that
very reason, and I agree with you in your suspicion that this is what
Larry may be doing -- inadvertently, I believe -- in his present way of
conceiving his task in the DU project, given what he says in his
description of it to us, to which I will now turn in my response to him
in another message, which will take me a few hours to compose. 
   
  Joe Ransdell
   
     
   
   
  - Original Message - 
  
From:
Steven
Ericsson Zenith 
To:
Peirce Discussion Forum 
Sent:
Tuesday, February 28, 2006 2:33 AM
Subject:
[peirce-l] Re: Are there authorities on authority?


Dear Joe,

There are no authorities on authority and the public is vulnerable if
it thinks otherwise.

The memeio position can be summarized by saying that dictionaries are
bad and glossaries are good. 

Dictionaries - and non-attributable content of any kind - are sociologically dangerous from the
memeio point of view.  And this applies in the small and in the large;
to creative teams in corporations and societies at large.

Dictionaries are dangerous because they allow two things to happen.  

First, and most obvious, the clever propagandist can mislead and
manipulate the group using the dictionary.  Second, a backdrop of fancy
takes control of convention.  No individual provides intent, the result
is arbitrary and literally meaningless.  IOW: Common usage, or common
knowledge, is no authority.

This latter case is
most common and the most severe situation - and it is the situation
that prevails today.  No-one can control it but the smart and unscrupulous
can use it to manipulate perception.  It is continuously subject to the
vagaries of
deconstruction.  It evolves by the refinement of fantastic invention.

As individuals we know innately how to deal with other individuals and
the development of authority comes directly from that development of
familiarity.  The
notion of FAMILIARITY is primary to my notion of AUTHORITY.  We only trust or distrust B initially
because of our familiarity with A.

The only way out
of the second case is to ignore all claimed authority and rely solely
upon construction and the development of familiarity. I believe firmly
that we must challenge ALL claims of authority and that authority is
reliable only in proximate groups where familiarity is strongest.

Credentials are that social pragmatic which allows us to to deal with
the unfamiliar.  Hence, "Doctor" or "Nurse."   This pragmatic is only
as as solid as the convention that maintains it.  

I agree with your skepticism of an group that gathers credentials and I
believe that this is widely held skepticism.  The public is rightly
suspicious of groups that gather credentials to establish authority,
with the explicit intention of asserting it.  

Of course, all organizations gather credentials initially to fill the
void left by a lack of familiarity with the new organization.  But they
rarely do so with the explicit intent of asserting that authority
directly as the primary asset of the product as Digital Universe
appears to intend. 

My objection to Wikipedia is not addressed by the Digital Universe
offering as Larry has described if the intent is simply to assemble a
credentialed board or credentialed group of stewards to rubber stamp ghost writers.  I
also rebel against the elitism I hear in Larry's comments - segregation
is unnatural and unlikely to serve the project well in my view.

The fact is that I applaud the familiarity that Wikipedia permits, but
- as I think I have said here before - the implementation is fatally
flawed; primarily by its lack of transparency and choice of license.  

In PANOPEDIA I have corrected these flaws,  they can be implemented
with only minor changes to the Mediawiki software. Unfortunately for
Wikipedia, it requires a new start, none of the content that exists in
the Wikipedia can be recovered.  

Wikipedia, I believe, may become familiar as a tabloid among
ency

[peirce-l] Re: Are there authorities on authority?

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Dear Joe,

There are no authorities on authority and the public is vulnerable if
it thinks otherwise.

The memeio position can be summarized by saying that dictionaries are
bad and glossaries are good. 

Dictionaries - and non-attributable content of any kind - are sociologically dangerous from the
memeio point of view.  And this applies in the small and in the large;
to creative teams in corporations and societies at large.

Dictionaries are dangerous because they allow two things to happen.  

First, and most obvious, the clever propagandist can mislead and
manipulate the group using the dictionary.  Second, a backdrop of fancy
takes control of convention.  No individual provides intent, the result
is arbitrary and literally meaningless.  IOW: Common usage, or common
knowledge, is no authority.

This latter case is
most common and the most severe situation - and it is the situation
that prevails today.  No-one can control it but the smart and unscrupulous
can use it to manipulate perception.  It is continuously subject to the
vagaries of deconstruction.  It evolves by the
refinement of fantastic invention.

As individuals we know innately how to deal with other individuals and
the development of authority comes directly from that development of
familiarity.  The
notion of FAMILIARITY is primary to my notion of AUTHORITY.  We only trust or distrust B initially
because of our familiarity with A.

The only way out of
the second case is to ignore all claimed authority and rely solely upon
construction and the development of familiarity. I believe firmly that
we must challenge ALL claims of authority and that authority is
reliable only in proximate groups where familiarity is strongest.

Credentials are that social pragmatic which allows us to to deal with
the unfamiliar.  Hence, "Doctor" or "Nurse."   This pragmatic is only
as as solid as the convention that maintains it.  

I agree with your skepticism of an group that gathers credentials and I
believe that this is widely held skepticism.  The public is rightly
suspicious of groups that gather credentials to establish authority,
with the explicit intention of asserting it.  

Of course, all organizations gather credentials initially to fill the
void left by a lack of familiarity with the new organization.  But they
rarely do so with the explicit intent of asserting that authority
directly as the primary asset of the product as Digital Universe
appears to intend. 

My objection to Wikipedia is not addressed by the Digital Universe
offering as Larry has described if the intent is simply to assemble a
credentialed board or credentialed group of stewards to rubber stamp ghost writers.  I
also rebel against the elitism I hear in Larry's comments - segregation
is unnatural and unlikely to serve the project well in my view.

The fact is that I applaud the familiarity that Wikipedia permits, but
- as I think I have said here before - the implementation is fatally
flawed; primarily by its lack of transparency and choice of license.  

In PANOPEDIA I have corrected these flaws,  they can be implemented
with only minor changes to the Mediawiki software. Unfortunately for
Wikipedia, it requires a new start, none of the content that exists in
the Wikipedia can be recovered.  

Wikipedia, I believe, may become familiar as a tabloid among
encyclopedias - and it will be maintained for the same reason that the
tabloid press continues to exist.  But no-one should be using it as an
authority - and I continue to be alarmed.

With respect,
Steven







Joseph Ransdell wrote:

  Larry and Steven:

I am trying to get clear on the relationship of your respective projects --  
the Digital Universe and Memeio -- to one another, which seem to be 
competitive in some way relative to the common aim of upgrading the 
intellectual quality and value of the web-structured world communicational 
network. In that respect both of your projects seem to be comparable as well 
to Berners-Lee's "semantic web" and the later idea of the "pragmatic web" 
(which I know of via Gary Richmond and Aldo de Moor), though whether there 
is a competition in that respect as well I am not sure.

In any case, one particular matter that especially interests me in this 
connection is your respective conceptions of what I will call "the problem 
of authority" (meaning intellectual or cognitive or epistemic or 
informational authority) and how that is to be identified. This is of course 
closely connected with the issue of transparency of authorship, i.e. the 
ability to identify who the author of given documents and the views 
expressed in them actually is. It seems that there may be no basic 
disagreement between you on the importance of being able to identify the 
author in order to be in position to assess the value and reliability of the 
information (including possible misinformation) available in the documents 
available on the web, but what is not clear to me is how such assessment is 
to be made which

[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Dear Larry,

Thank you for your response.

The references that you give reveal transparency regarding your 
organization but that is not the transparency we are discussing.  
Wikipedia is also transparent in this sense.


We have discussed here the transparency of authorship - especially with 
respect to articles in Wikipedia.  I have argued here that identifying 
the author is a logical necessity and we have explored the writings of 
Peirce that show he argued in the same way.


If you review my user page on Panopedia I have summarized the position 
there


   http://www.panopedia.org/index.php/User:Steven

And if you look at my Wikipedia page I have summarized the issues that 
concern me


   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StevenZenith

I am not unsympathetic to your cause - if I understand it correctly - 
but it does not appear to address the particular issues I am interested 
in.  DU has certainly assembled an impressive set of credentials but, as 
I am sure you realize given the Wikpedia experience, that is no 
guarantee of success.


From my point of view it is not clear that DU can develop familiarity 
with authors and ultimately it is from that familiarity that authority 
is derived.  An example of the power of familiarity is Gary's enthusiasm 
for Lawrence Lessig or, in the past, the public admiration of Bertram 
Russell.  Then arises authority by association with those we are 
familiar - so DU will benefit from the relationship with Lessig and so 
on.  This is how the world works.


Wikipedia allows the development of familiarity, in spades, but is 
fatally flawed by its lack of transparency.  In Panopedia I seek to 
provide an environment with the Wikipedia benefits but without this 
flaw. It will be an interesting experiment.


As an inveterate bootstrapper I admire the volunteer contributors model 
and for encyclopedia articles there appear to be plenty of competent 
contributors available outside of the academic cliques, in institutions 
far and wide, happy to take advantage of a platform such as Panopedia.  
We shall see. 

As to matters of fact, I think DU is an interesting case in point - 
since you reveal that it is not as it currently presents itself - a 
common problem on the web.  My misunderstandings, rhetorical differences 
aside, apparently derive mostly from things I could not have known, 
future intentions of DU.


I look forward to the revisions to see how it matches the need.

With respect,
Steven


Larry Sanger wrote:


All,

Forgive the intrusion.  After Jaime Nubiola forwarded Steven Zenith's mail
to me, I thought I would respond here on the list (rather than bother Jaime
further personally).  I have no interest in a long drawn-out discussion--I
simply wished to correct a few factual errors in Steven's post.

First, let me grant that the digitaluniverse.net website's strategy at
present isn't the best.  It was originally designed with a view to potential
users rather than potential contributors.  The Web design team decided a few
weeks ago to entirely rework the website--a new one should be out within a
few weeks, I hope.

 


FWIW. I know of the ManyOne project and have tried before to understand
what they are trying to do.  Digital Universe is designed to promote 
that project.
   



ManyOne is not a project; it is a technology service company.  The DU is the
content-creation project.  Also, not the claim itself but the converse is
true: in a perfectly straightforward factual sense, ManyOne is designed to
support and promote the nonprofit, free-as-in-freedom DU.  That really is
the *purpose* of ManyOne.

 


However, it requires you to download the ManyOne
application suite - a new browser - to subscribe PLUS they want to up 
sell Internet services to you.
   



We (= the DU and ManyOne) agree completely that one should not have to use a
new browser to see the content.  This should be fixed by the end of April,
when we launch a browser-neutral website that requires neither a download
nor a login to view.  In fact, this has long been our plan (although of
course Steven had no way of knowing all this!).

Bear in mind that the browser and DU will always be free of charge, and the
vast bulk of the content will always be free (i.e., open content).
Including the entire encyclopedia and almost everything else too.  The
*purpose* of the DU is to aggregate and organize the world's reliable free
information in one place.

 


While I certainly appreciate the need to
support projects like this, it seems unnecessarily complex and it's 
value is unclear.
   



Its value will be tremendous and beyond doubt, if we succeed.  The interface
and project will both be about as complex as the finest free information
resource and its supporting community would have to be--which is to say,
pretty complex, but not unnecessarily so.  For one thing, we are already
using a wiki for the Encyclopedia of Earth (not publicly viewable yet).

 


This could be resolved perhaps if they simply
redesign

[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

FWIW. I know of the ManyOne project and have tried before to understand 
what they are trying to do.  Digital Universe is designed to promote 
that project.  However, it requires you to download the ManyOne 
application suite - a new browser - to subscribe PLUS they want to up 
sell Internet services to you. 

While I certainly appreciate the need to support projects like this, it 
seems unnecessarily complex and it's value is unclear.  This could be 
resolved perhaps if they simply redesigned their interface and 
presentation of their vision (for which there is no clear statement 
unless it is that they think they have a better browser).


In particular, it is not clear that the encyclopedia is free in the 
sense of the Creative Commons.   They do not appear to use a license 
that permits free use of copies, which is especially important for the 
third world and in working-class initiatives. 

Further, there is no statement about their transparency policy and I saw 
no author profiles.  The sign up process seems unnecessarily intimidating.


On the upside, they do appear to have funding - but why all the commerce 
and channeling of money? :-)


With respect,
Steven



Jaime Nubiola wrote:


Dear all,

I forwarded to Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, the thread of messages on 
Panopedia. I copy below his answer announcing the new project Digital Universe 
that may interest to some people in the list,

Jaime

 


Thanks for forwarding these mails about Panopedia.  I'm seeing increasing
interest in having a wiki encyclopedia managed by experts.  I know of
another academic general encyclopedia project starting, as well as
specialized encyclopedias about law and medicine.

As co-founder of Wikipedia and the person who basically conceived of it and
got it started, however, I would direct people to get involved instead with
my new project Digital Universe, at http://www.digitaluniverse.net .  I am
involved in the project as Director of Distributed Content Programs and have
been helping to design our own general wiki encyclopedia project.  I have
been thinking very hard for over a year about how to make the Wikipedia
magic happen in a more academic context, and I think we have settled upon
the right formula.  It will be part of a larger expert-managed information
resource, the Digital Universe.

For more information, please see (and please distribute!) this blog post:
http://www.digitaluniverse.net/participate/blog/200601192.php

If you would like to get involved, please go here:
http://www.digitaluniverse.net/create/content/

The encyclopedia project, to be managed by a large group of top-notch
scholars and scientists from a wide range of fields, should be starting
within a few months.  A prototype, the Encyclopedia of Earth, is already
under development and has over 500 articles.

--Larry Sanger

Director of Distributed Content Programs, Digital Universe Foundation
100 Enterprise Way, Suite G370, Scotts Valley, CA  95066
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.digitaluniverse.net/
   



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: What's going on here?

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Dear Thomas,

I see why you are concerned, and it seems to me that Peirce is
stipulating that this passage does indicates a proof.  The nature of
the proof, he argues, is in due consideration of the argument made in
the passage.

The proof he proposes is of the "necessity for a sign monstrative of
the connection of premise and conclusion." And then he asks us to
simply perceive the fact of the matter since no mark ("no symbol can
show") is in possession of this connection - it is present only in our
apprehension. QED.  It is, he argues, a proof by existence.

Now this is not a proof in the sense that we are familiar with today -
and one might argue that it is the observation of an axiom and not a
proof at all. IOW, it is not constructive but a base observation.

This is a rather like Rudolf Carnap's later (and more systematic)
assertion of his "Basic Relation" as "the recognition of similarity" in
semeiosis (in
LSotW),  if you
accept that premise and conclusion present a tautology.

With respect,
Steven

Gary Richmond wrote:

  
Thomas Riese wrote:
  
  
  On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:23:55 +0100, Gary
Richmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  wrote:



Thomas Riese wrote:
  
  
  "The necessity for a sign directly
monstrative of the

connection of premiss and conclusion is susceptible of proof.

The proof is as follows. When we contemplate the premiss,

we mentally perceive that that being true the conclusion is

true. I say we _perceive_ it, because clear knowledge follows

contemplation without any intermediate process. Since the

conclusion becomes certain, there is some state at which it

becomes directly certain. Now this no symbol can show; for a

symbol is an indirect sign depending on the association of ideas.

Hence, a sign directly exhibiting the mode of relation is

required. This promised proof presents this difficulty: namely,

it requires the reader actually to _think_ in order to see the

force of it. That is to say, he must represent the state of

things considered in a direct imaginative way."

(Charles Peirce, Collected Papers 4.75)


  
Ergo:
  
  
   CP 4.76 A large part of logic will
consist in the study of the  different monstrative signs, or icons,
serviceable in reasoning.

  
  
  
  
Gary Richmond
  



Ok, Gary, but does the proof prove this?


Thomas;-)

  
  
  
Perhaps the "ergo" was too strong; ergo, whoops, I meant, therefore :-)
I will  leave it up to you and others to connect CP 4.45 & 4.76.
  
  
Gary
  
  
  
---

Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]


  
  
---
  
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
  


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Dear Gary,

My thanks for your encouraging words. 

I agree that Ben's suggestion of cross referencing to Wikipedia is 
interesting - and I am thinking about the implications of that 
approach.  Wikipedia articles do not have stable states.  Who would own 
the labels? 

I did consider that one solution was to produce a "reviewed version" of 
Wikipedia which took a snapshot and reviewed all the articles - deleting 
the most onerous - but I concluded that this was impossible to maintain 
and did seem rather egotistical.


However, as I note in my response to Frances the "almostness" of 
Wikipedia is an interesting effect; rather like writing poetry by 
cutting out random words from a magazine and throwing them on a table.


Of course, I am rather hoping that Ben will want to build a taxonomy :-)

With respect,
Steven

Gary Richmond wrote:


Steven, Catherine, Ben, list,

I would like to suggest that Ben's analysis perhaps rather nicely 
bridges the gap between what seems like the polar positions held by 
Steven and frances, Frances arguing on the one hand that:


The need for identifying the messenger is in my opinion overstated 
and overrated. It too often smacks of celebrity elitism, and lionizes 
the messenger to the detriment of the message.


and Steven on the other that:

I am most firmly convinced that there is no message without a 
messenger;  i.e., any message without a clearly identifiable 
messenger is simply meaningless. 


Tending to reconcile these two positions, Ben wrote:


My initial take is that a transparency-requirent version of Wikipedia is an 
excellent idea, but that, considering the kind of energy which has been put 
into Wikipedia, it may take quite some time for similar energy to build for the 
Panopedia. Yet ultimately it could happen. It would be nice if it could 
systematically include links to corresponding Wikipedia articles. In effect, 
both systems would be run, checkably against each other. A body of commentary 
by each about the other would be built up, too.
 

I especially like Ben's idea that the Panopedia site might 
"systematically include links to corresponding Wikipedia articles" not 
only because a great deal of solid work has been done there which 
could be referenced, but that where authors of Panopedia articles 
believe the Wikipedia article in question is in error, incomplete, 
one-sided, etc. they could point to those errors in their own 
articles. Ben continued.



I don't oppose the permitted anonymity of Wikipedia, because I think it frees 
people to say true things that they wouldn't otherwise say. That's a good thing in 
every society. It could, perhaps, use a label briefly stating that there isn't 
transparency, & summarizing briefly, if that's possible, the kinds of checks 
that are in place. I mean a label such as would be carried along with articles' 
contents to other sites continually using such articles, e.g., about.com .
 

Again, this tends to lend support to the value of both approaches (why 
either/or?) although, as Ben notes, even were one to add to 
theWikipedia site a label stating lack of transparency, etc. that, as 
Ben says,  ". . . it seems indeed doubtful that all drawbacks can be 
remedied in the Wikipedia framework." Nevertheless, even the case of 
grave error which Steven pointed to /was/ found and /was/ corrected. I 
personally have found Wikipedia a valuable resource, but then I always 
triangulate any research with other sources.


Steven, I spent some time exploring it yesterday, and I like the look 
of your Panopedia project. I also enjoyed a romp through your home 
page which points to all sorts of valuable resources, for example, 
reminding me that I want to sign up for Skype.


Best,

Gary Richmond




---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Transparency is a pragmatic. Or, exactly as Joe suggests that Peirce 
implies (is there a reference to this Joe?): identifying the author is a 
logical necessity.


I have not said that one cannot *give* or *invent* meaning to articles 
in Wikipedia - or even independently find insight by the mere accident 
of signs or inspiration by the same means, as one might find in a work 
of modern art.  In semeiosis this is exactly what is happening.  That 
there is some familiarity in the collection of articles makes it 
relatively easy.  However, to do so is no different than giving meaning 
to the signs of the Zodiac.


It should be clear that I find Wikipedia an excellent and interesting 
study - I do not find it a good source as an encyclopedia. I doubt that 
well funded and organized propagandists have ignored its potential and 
the potential of similar sites for broad manipulation of perception. I 
know that sounds paranoid :-)  I am sincerely concerned  that the public 
is at risk.


With respect,
Steven


Frances Catherine Kelly wrote:


Steven...

Aside from the issues of objective intent and textual authorship, the
promise of an open and free internet with its unpoliced websites and
networks that are responsible and reasonable is regrettably as yet
unfulfilled. Even the "serious" lists continue to be filled with
trivial atopical nonsense. Expert thinkers furthermore still covet
their sound ideas, and in my experience are hesitant to post and store
them in such an unpredictable environment. Striking a balance for the
"serious" lists on the internet between being opened and closed or
free and fee is obviously being worked and tooled by specialists in
the field, and is cause for some optimism. This very site is perhaps a
good example of it, for which the manager or owner in his kind wisdom
should be applauded.

(Forgive this injection, but by any logical or semiotic stretch, the
message with its intent or effect is not the messenger, any more than
the interpretant sign is the interpreter. Logically, it is pointless
and meaningless and useless to say attack the messenger or the
interpreter of a sign who merely expedites it. Any alternative in
logic wrongly resorts to some form of psychologistic subjectivism or
linguistic nominalism. The exception might be in finding the motive of
desire for signers in seeking the logical truth of a sign initially in
their efforts. This is a preliminary state of thought that logic
seemingly cannot account for solely on its own alone. This may very
well be the reason why abductive inference is available to mind, but
then this too is an objective kind of logic. The solution to this
problem of course is objective relativism, where the signer is held to
be brought into a relation with the message they sense, rather than
with their inner sense of the message, because it is after all the
message that is said to be say nice or valid or sound or true.)


Steven partly wrote...
I am most firmly convinced that there is no message without a
messenger; i.e. any message without a clearly identifiable messenger
is simply meaningless. By which I mean literally without intent;
absent the embodiment of meaning in a message creator. We are deceived
if we believe that there is intent in any message in which the
messenger cannot be clearly identified or identified by proxy through
a transparent identity. We would do as well to consider astrology.
Hence, from this point of view, almost everything that is in the
Wikipedia is meaningless. Despite your criticism of elitism, you
advocate aristocracy. I am not an aristocrat. Each idea I give out
freely provides me with bills to pay.



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Panopedia

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Thank you for your input Frances.

I am most firmly convinced that there is no message without a 
messenger;  i.e., any message without a clearly identifiable messenger 
is simply meaningless.  By which I mean literally without intent; absent 
the embodiment of meaning in a message creator.


We are deceived if we believe that there is intent in any message in 
which the messenger cannot be clearly identified or identified by proxy 
through a transparent identity.  We would do as well to consider astrology.


Hence, from this POV, almost everything that is in the Wikipedia is 
meaningless.


Despite your criticism of elitism, you advocate aristocracy.  I am not 
an aristocrat.  Each idea I give out freely provides me with bills to pay. 


With respect,
Steven


Frances Catherine Kelly wrote:


Steven...
This message may be an aside, but the principle of evolutionary love
as it is understood by me might be well applied to the act of science.
It states that objects and here thinkers should give of themselves and
thus their ideas freely, for its own intrinsic sake, with no ulterior
motive, and expect nothing in return for the effort. This ideal
implies to me that it is the message that is important, and not the
messenger. It also neatly disposes of personal ego and material
profit. This principle of course was posited by Peirce well before the
promising internet and its open websites existed, if indeed this fact
makes any difference. The need for identifying the messenger is in my
opinion overstated and overrated. It too often smacks of celebrity
elitism, and lionizes the messenger to the detriment of the message.



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Panopedia

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Excuse me if this is a little off track, but I promise there is a 
Peircian edge to it from several points of view.


I know that several people here on Peirce-l have attempted to write 
articles for Wikipedia - and I have expressed my own concerns here in 
the past. If you missed those then you can find a summary of the issues 
on my Wikipedia user page:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:StevenZenith

As many of you know I am interested in semeiotic issues as they relate 
to the development of human understanding, deliberation and consensus on 
the Internet - and I conduct "field research" by going out there and 
actually engaging to some level with the various mediums.


A principal issue that occurs again and again - and we have seen it here 
on Peirce-l - is what is broadly called the issue of "transparency."  
That is the ability to know who the author is.  As you will see, I 
firmly believe that when dealing with knowledge it is essential that we 
can identify the author - it is essential for the author to be 
transparent.  There are many reasons for this but the primary reason is 
that without this knowledge we can be easily misled and manipulated both 
as individuals and communities.


My primary focus in the past couple of years has been Wikipedia and 
Citizen Journalism where this problem is actively manifest.


So, aside from the observations that assist theoretical developments,  I 
am a pragmatist and I have assembled a concept piece that I would be 
please if Ben and Gary, at least, would review.


In essence I believe that the basic idea behind Wikipedia is a good one 
- a free encyclopedia will aid many and particularly the alternative 
education community of which I am a life member.  But Wikipedia is 
doomed to fail principally because of the transparency issues mentioned 
above.  In addition, they can't back out.  The copyright license they 
have selected essentially prevents them from changing their model - they 
would have to start again and would not be able to use the current base. 
Which is exactly what I think they should do, but they won't because the 
community of anonymity is a compulsive game - they have too much 
invested.  So what, I thought, would solve the problem?


See

http://www.panopedia.org

It is a concept piece based on the familiar Wikipedia software modified 
to enforce transparency requirements.  It combines several interests of 
mine - including my personal commitment to place on line a resource that 
will continue to serve my home schooled children in their adult years.


Contributions and comments from your experiences with Wikipedia and 
elsewhere are welcome. 

Caveat: This is a concept piece that currently sits on servers in my 
garage where bandwidth is limited - and it is essentially an empty 
encyclopedia - if it seems viable I will move it out of there.


With respect,
Steven


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: [peirce-l] Re: [peirce-l] [Fwd: [Fis] Søren Brier, Departmen t of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School is defending his d octoral thesis: "Cybersemiotics

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

No problem Joe, thanks for the acknowledgment.

I am glad to see Brier's work appreciated.

With respect,
Steven

Joseph Ransdell wrote:


Steven and Gary R:

Sorry to have overlooked that it was you who initially posted the reference 
to Brier,
Steven.  Your message had somehow gotten misfiled and overlooked by me and I 
didn't realize at first that Gary was responding initially to your prior 
post.


Joe Ransdell


- Original Message - 
From: "Steven Ericsson Zenith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" 
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 1:18 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] [Fwd: [Fis] Søren Brier, Department of Management, 
Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School is defending his 
doctoral thesis: "Cybersemiotics - Why information is not enough!" ]



Because I think it relevant to Peirce-l ... :-)






---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]







No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.15.2/253 - Release Date: 2/7/2006



 



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] [Fwd: [Fis] Søren Brier, Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copen hagen Business School is defending his doctor al thesis: "Cybersemiotics - Why informa tion is not enoug

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Because I think it relevant to Peirce-l ... :-)
--- Begin Message ---








Associated professor PhD, Søren Brier, Department of
Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen
 Business School
is defending his doctoral thesis 

 

"Cybersemiotics - Why information is not
enough!” 

 

A Trans-Disciplinary Approach to Information, Cognition
and Communication Studies, through an Integration of Niklas Luhmann’s
Communication Theory with C. S. Peirce’s Semiotics. 

 

What information, cognition, communication,
intelligence and meaning are, is a very old philosophical problem. But today
these questions, since Shannon’s
information theory and Wiener’s cybernetics, are formulated in the
trans-disciplinary context of computers, information systems, and ultimately
the Internet demanding a framework encompassing the complex area of
information, cognition and communication science. The current cognitive science
information processing paradigm is criticized from a phenomenological and
ethological point of view as being an insufficient foundation of information
science because it lacks an evolutionary theory of embodied first person
experience and signification. 

 

As a constructive alternative is formulated a new
trans-disciplinary framework (Cybersemiotics). This is based on an integration
of a modernized version of Peirce’s semiotics in the form of biosemiotics,
which is integrated with Luhmann’s communicational systems theory.
elements from embodied cognitive semantics, ethology and language game theory
are also used. The theory development is embedded in an ongoing philosophy of
"science" reflection on the possibility of a non-reductionistic
Transdisciplinarity. Opting for a transdisciplinary framework, after ALL
postulates a sort of unity of sciences at a metalevel distinguishing the
natural and social sciences as well has humanities from other symbolic
generalized media such as politics, art and religion. 

 

Cybersemiotic provides a framework contributing to
information and knowledge management systems design as well as for a general
theory of cognition and communication.

 

A long Danish and a shorter English summary can be
read at cbs.dk

.

 

Assessment Committee

Professor, Ole Fogh Kirkeby, CBS (Chairman)

Professor, Dick Baecker, Universität Witten/Herdecke

Professor, John Deely, University of St. Thomas,
Houston

 

Official opponents

Professor, John Deely, University of St. Thomas,
Houston

Professor, Dr.rer.soc. Dick Baecker, Universität
Witten/Herdecke 

 

Best Regards 

 

Jens Aaris Thisted

Dean, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration

 

Time and place:

6. March 2006 

Time 13.00

 

Copenhagen Business School

Tuborg Lecture Hall 2.02

Solbjerg Plads 3

2000 Frederiksberg

 

Directions:

Click here
  to
see a map of the area. 

 

Registration:

Everyone is welcome to participate at the public defense.
No registration is needed.

 

Arranged by:

Faculty of Economics and Business Administration 

 

Cand. Scient. PhD in Philosophy of Science Søren Brier, holds a master
in biology from University
 of Copenhagen from 1979
and a PhD in philosophy of Science from Roskilde University (RUC). He has since
august 2003 been an associate professor in the department for Management, Politics
and Philosophy. 

 

He is the founder and ed. in chief of the
interdisciplinary quarterly journal Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 1992- ,
co-founder of The International Association for Biosemiotic Studies in 2005, a trustee for the
American Society for Cybernetics. member of the board for the Sociocybernetics
Group (ISA) and Foundation of Information Science (FIS)group. He is on the
editorial board of Systems Research and Behavioral Science, J. of Biosemiotic
and TripleC (Cognition, Communication and Cooperation.

 

Home page with CV, publication list and full text
electronic articles can be found here
 .

 

Venlig hilsen / Best wishes

 

Søren
 Brier  

 

Copenhagen Business School , Management, Politics and Philosophy, 
Porcelænshaven 18 A
, DK-2000 Frederiksberg.


 

Office-phone +45 3815 2208   Cell  28564282

Ed. in Chief of  Cybernetics & Human Knowing :
home page: 

http://www.imprint-academic.com/C&HK

 

 

 

 

 






___
fis mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
--- End Message ---
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: Why Doesn't Peirce-L Use LISTSERV Software?

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Indeed, same is true for mathematics and computer science ... or there 
is the free mailing list software "mailman" that is now taking over from 
listserv. 

On the question of search engines - it is a straight forward matter to 
have Google focus on a single site that is a simple web archive like 
listserv, mailman or the new mail-archive.  Public search engines in 
general should be more helpful now in anycase and archive.org will be 
able to navigate that too.


I'm less confident that Game will help us as much as the mail-archive.

Prayer is not going to help any - a little money for Joe's project on 
the other hand ...


With respect,
Steven


Richard Hake wrote:


I hope you will excuse this post by a Peirce-L lurker.

Joseph Ransdell, in a Peirce-L message optimistically titled "one list 
archive now working" of 2006-01-13 18:18:36 GMT, wrote:


"I don't myself believe in the power of prayer, unfortunately; but for 
those of you who make up for the deficiencies of sceptics, like me, 
let me request that you include that search engine in your daily 
prayers because we certainly could use a good search engine after 
these many years of deprivation!  (And bear in mind, too, that Peirce 
was himself a Christian of sorts, as you doubtless know, so your 
prayers will not be wasted on benefiting heathens like me in ways we 
do not deserve!)"


Rather than rely on prayer, I wonder if the use of the great LISTSERV 
software by L-Soft has ever been considered? Many academic discussion 
lists, e.g. the AERA lists and most physics lists run on LISTSERV 
software.


To see the benefits of LISTSERV software go to the OPEN archives of 
POD (Professional and Organizational Development) at 
 and its great search engine 
at . If you type "Peirce" 
(without the quotes) into the "Search for" slot, you'll obtain 12 
hits, only two of them [Hake (2003a,b)] relevant to Charles Sanders 
Peirce.


In "Re: Lively Academic Listservs" [Hake (2003b)], I wrote:
"LISTSERV" is a trademark of L-Soft  . Although 
many discussion lists (such as POD) utilize L-soft and may properly be 
called "listservs" a more general term is "discussion lists" DL's. 
Incidentally LISTSERV software provides marvelous archives searchable 
by keyword, author, subject, date, or any combination of those. Why do 
some DL's forego use of easily searchable archives by utilizing 
antediluvian software?"


Yes, I know, there is an issue of the cost of using LISTSERV software, 
but if Dewey-L  can 
afford it, why can't Peirce-L ??


Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
24245 Hatteras Street, Woodland Hills, CA 91367
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>




REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2003a. "Re: Paper on Logical Positivism and Quantitative 
Methods," online at 
. 
Post of 24 Apr 2003 13:33:16-0700 to AERA-D and POD.


Hake, R.R. 2003b. "Re: Lively Academic Listservs," online at 
. Post of 
5 Dec 2003 16:02:18 -0800 to POD, PhysLrnR, Physhare.  Later sent to 
AERA-D, EvalTalk, and ASSESS, and Math-Learn. The APPENDIX contains a 
list of academic listserves, now superseded by the list in Hake 
(2005a).  The reference to posting suggestions was inadvertently 
omitted. The most recent version is at Hake (2005b).


Hake, R.R. 2005a. "The Insularity of Educational Research," online at 
. 
Post of 21 May 2005 12:11:27-0700 to AERA-L and PhysLrnR. Contains a 
list of discussion-list archive URL's.


Hake, R.R. 2005b. "Fourteen Posting Suggestions," online at
. Post
of 23 Jul 2005 11:38:29-0400 to AERA-C, AERA-G, AERA-GSL, AERA-H, 
AERA-I, AERA-J, AERA-K, AERA-L, ASSESS, EvalTalk, Math-Learn, 
PhysLrnR, STLHE-L, TeachingEdPsych, and TIPS.


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] His Glassy Essence

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Is there a concensus view on this
biography and does anyone know the status of the following two parts?

Steven



---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com

[peirce-l] Re: the list, the website, the Peirce telecommunity

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

Let me add my voice of support to
Joe's proposal's here and my regret that family and funding challenges
at this end have prevented me from contributing directly to such a goal
in the past year.  Unfortunately those challenges continue and I find
myself spending much of my time either fundraising or managing family
matters. 

I do hope however, in the future, to be able to make a contribution -
in both time and resources - to Joe's broader goals and I agree that a
project that covers more than one individual makes sense.  I would
personally like to see such a  scholarly biography and literature
resource for semeiotics that covered the Enlightenment authors through
to the logicians of the early twentieth century.

Steven



Joseph Ransdell wrote:

  Thank, Clark, for your account bearing on the possible use of RSS for the 
Arisbe website.  This is very helpful for the longer range problems that 
should be addressed by the telecommunity of those interested in Peirce's 
work.  Even before the existence of the Web, it had become fairly clear to 
me that something like what we now think of as a website functioning as a 
gateway to everything of interest in connection with Peirce that can be 
found or learned about on-line was what is wanted, and I thought of the 
Arisbe website, when I first created it, as being the beginning of the 
development of that.  Actually developing it in that way, though,  would 
require the development and coordination of a number of technologies of 
coordination, and I am beginning to see that RSS is an important part of 
that.   This further development of a universal gateway  now, though, would 
require the development of an organization which would have that as its aim, 
which would in turn supposes or presuppose that there are in fact enough 
people interested in Peirce who would, under some conceivable and practical 
conditions, be willing to devote a substantial part of their time -- pro 
bono (i.e. as an act of charity in the original sense of "caritas") -- to 
constructing and maintaining whatever facilities that would require.

At the time when the Arisbe website was first set up -- I don't remember the 
exact date, but somewhere around 1995-1996, as I recall -- I was still 
hopeful that it would be possible to jumpstart such an organization by 
getting funds for the initial stages of development of the website from some 
funding agency which could, in effect, invest in it as a prototype that 
could be referred to and used in the development ("R & D") of other websites 
answering to other intellectual and cultural interests.  But you don't get 
financial support for such a thing now when it is driven only by a single 
individual or a single institution:  it has to be conceived as grounded in 
the activities of multiple institutions and multiple individuals coordinated 
as a team.  And in virtue of some earlier experience of mine in attempting 
to get that to happen I also had to recognize that, at that time, there 
really was no way to do that because the institutional base wasn't there.

that time there has come to be some reason to believe that the people at the 
Peirce Edition Project at Indianapolis. and at some other institutions 
around the world, would be cooperative in doing that, but I do not think 
that will in fact happen even now until some organization is created 
(something comparable to but distinct from the Charles S. Peirce Society) 
that will have as its basic task both the further articulation and 
development of the concept of a universal on-line gateway to Peirce-related 
studies and the creation of the actual facilities which would contribute to 
that.  That is what I would have in mind myself in speaking of such a 
gateway as being a project of "the Peirce telecommunity".   In a loose 
sense, such a community already exists, I suppose, but more in potentia than 
in actuality, and it will never get past that stage of unactualized 
potentiality until it becomes institutionalized through an organization 
comparable to -- though distinct from -- the Peirce Society.  Supposing such 
a new telecommunications-oriented society were to come into existence, 
taking as its primary aim the sort of coordinated task I am suggesting, I 
think it would be possible to find substantial funding for it, enough to 
make it possible to support the expense of technical developments and 
implementations that would be required, and with enough promise in it to be 
able to count on a significant amount of contributions of time and labor pro 
bono as well.

I do not feel that I am in position to take the leadership role in doing 
this sort of thing, though, and this for a number of reasons I won't go into 
now, at least.  But I would certainly be supportive of it myself.  At 
present, though, all I am doing myself is trying to solve the archive 
problem for the list, which is primarily just a technical problem.  I do 
think, though, that the time is probably ripe for those 

[peirce-l] Re: What is RSS?

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

What use could RSS be to Peirce-l?
It will allow someone using an RSS reader - for example, in conjunction
with their Outlook or Thunderbird email client - or "aggregator" that
gathers several RSS feeds - to be notified that new entries exist in
the archive. It is redundant for those of use that are active
subscribers to the list.

Steven


Joseph Ransdell wrote:

  
  
  
  
  Well, let me put it
this way, Gary.  What use could this be to us?  How exactly would it
work in practice? The Gmane archive says it has an "RSS" feed?  So
what?  Of what use could that be to us?  My mind just goes blank when confronted
with "aggregates" and "feeds" and "syndication" and the like.  
   
  Joe 
   
  
-
Original Message - 
From:
Gary
Richmond 
To:
Peirce Discussion Forum 
Sent:
Wednesday, January 04, 2006 10:39 AM
Subject:
[peirce-l] Re: What is RSS?


Joe,

This explains it pretty clearly I think (not that I have expertise in
such matters myself)
http://www.answers.com/rss?gwp=11&ver=1.0.8.207&method=3
See especially the Wikipedia entry.

Gary


  
  
  
  
  
  
    <>RSS
  (Really Simple Syndication) A
syndication format that was developed by Netscape in 1999 and became
very popular for aggregating updates to blogs and the latest news from
Web sites. RSS has also stood for "Rich Site Summary" and "RDF Site
Summary." See syndication format, blog and podcasting. 
  RSS 1.0 and RSS 2.0
  
There are two lineages of RSS. RSS 1.0 conforms to the W3C's RDF
specification and was released from the RSS-DEV Working Group in 2000
(see RDF). RSS 2.0 was released by Harvard Law School in
2003, which evolved from Netscape's Versions 0.90 and 0.91. In 1999,
Radio Userland's Dave Winer took over RSS 0.91, later upgrading it to
Versions 0.92 and 0.94 and turning it over to Harvard in 2003 as RSS
2.0. Most news viewers support both formats. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  
NewsGator RSS
Reader
Free online news reader. Fastest, most powerful aggregator available.
www.newsgator.com

  
  
Feedalot Reader (new)
Keep track of RSS News and Blogs with free web & mobile
feed reader.
feedalot.com

  

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
   Wikipedia 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  RSS (file format)
  
  
  RSS is a family of XML file formats for web syndication used by news websites and weblogs. They are used to provide items containing
short descriptions of web content together with a link to the full
version of the content. This information is delivered as an XML file called RSS feed, webfeed, RSS
stream, or RSS channel.
  The acronym stands for one of the following standards:
  
Rich Site Summary (RSS 0.91) 
RDF Site Summary (RSS 0.9 and 1.0) 
Really Simple Syndication (RSS 2.0) 
  
  
  Usage
  RSS is widely used by the weblog community to share the latest entries'
headlines or their full text, and even attached multimedia files. (See podcasting, broadcatching and MP3 blogs.)
  The first online news site to use RSS feeds was Variety.com in June of 2002. In 2004 and 2005, after
several years of use by early adopters, use of RSS spread to many major
news organizations, including Reuters and the Associated Press. Under various usage agreements,
providers allow other websites to incorporate their "syndicated"
headline or headline-and-short-summary feeds.
  A program known as a feed reader or aggregator
can check RSS-enabled webpages on behalf of a user and display any
updated articles that it finds. It is now common to find RSS feeds on
major web sites, as well as many smaller ones.
  Client-side readers and aggregators are typically constructed
as standalone programs or extensions to existing programs like web browsers. See List of news aggregators for a list of clients for
various operating systems.
  Web-based feed readers and news aggregators require no
software installation and make the user's "feeds" available on any
computer with Web access. Some aggregators syndicate (combine) RSS
feeds into new feeds, e.g. take all football related items from several
sports feeds and provide a new football feed. There are also search
engines for RSS feeds like Feedster, Technorati, Pluck or Plazoo.
  RSS feeds are typically linked to with an orange rectangle
with the letters XML () or RSS ().
  
  
  



Joseph Ransdell wrote:

  Does anybody know what "RSS" means or refers to, who would be willing to 
describe it in terms comprehensible to ordinary human beings, like me, who 
lack background in technical expertise in computing?

Joe Ransdell 



  

---
Message from 

[peirce-l] Re: What is RSS?

[Steven Ericsson Zenith]

RSS = Really Simple Syndication.
It is an xml file that briefly describes a stream of published content
- and typically includes the title, description, author, and a link to
the content.  It has found its application especially to a stream of
blog entries.

Can be read by "readers" such as NewsGator or aggregators, such as
http://www.firstsay.com

Steven

Joseph Ransdell wrote:

  Does anybody know what "RSS" means or refers to, who would be willing to 
describe it in terms comprehensible to ordinary human beings, like me, who 
lack background in technical expertise in computing?

Joe Ransdell 



  


---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com