Re: Re: Computational Secondness 1 (formerly Computational Autopoetics 1)

2012-10-16 Thread Russell Standish
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 07:58:35AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Russell Standish > > 1) It is a cruelty of nature to make the two IMHO most powerful thinkers > (Peirce and Leibniz) to be the two most difficult to understand. > I would not throw them out just yet. I'm not. But until someone c

Re: Re: Computational Secondness 1 (formerly Computational Autopoetics 1)

2012-10-16 Thread Roger Clough
g the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-15, 18:05:59 Subject: Re: Computational Secondness 1 (formerly Computational Autopoetics 1) I'm more than happy for you to explore this, and report back when you can explain it in terms other than

Re: Computational Secondness 1 (formerly Computational Autopoetics 1)

2012-10-15 Thread Russell Standish
I'm more than happy for you to explore this, and report back when you can explain it in terms other than the Peircean trinity. I never found the Peircean classification to shed light or insight into anything. YMMV though, of course! I'm curious to know why you think autopoetic is misleading. My cr

Computational Secondness 1 (formerly Computational Autopoetics 1)

2012-10-15 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Russell Standish A self-organizing system is not what I proposed because in such a system it is the output (Thirdness) that organizes itself. And "autopoetics" is also apparently a misleading term. I was seduced by its academic associations. Instead, I see now that what I am proposing