Re: [Fis] Comes the Revolution. The Real

2017-12-16 Thread Sungchul Ji 
Hi Joseph,


Sorry for my mis-spelling your first name in my previous email.


Sung



From: Fis  on behalf of Joseph Brenner 

Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 11:56 AM
To: 'Søren Brier'; 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] Comes the Revolution. The Real


Dear Søren,



Thank you for a positive and constructive note and question. Although I 
maintain my critique of Peirce’s tychism and synechism and his concepts of and 
manipulations of signs and diagrams, I have always seen value in many of his 
intuitions. I would be glad to consider him a ‘humanist with a semiotic 
worldview’. It takes all kinds . . .



I think for participants in this list to say what they mean by reality, exactly 
for, as you put it, a discussion of the ontology and science behind various 
informational paradigms, would be very useful. Pedro, what do you think? For me 
reality is change and stability, being and becoming, appearance and, 
contradictorially, the reality behind appearance. This is why standard logic 
doesn’t work.



Best Season’s Greetings,



Joseph



P.S. Perhaps a typo, but what is the sense of ‘treading’ in ‘treading 
processual concept’?









From: Søren Brier [mailto:sbr@cbs.dk]
Sent: samedi, 16 décembre 2017 13:28
To: Joseph Brenner; fis
Subject: RE: [Fis] Comes the Revolution



Dear Joseph



This very Peircean of you as “The challenge is to reconcile our roles as 
informational organisms and agents within nature and as stewards of nature.” is 
at the centre of Peirce’s thinking instead that he uses the treading processual 
concept of sign instead of information as his basic concept . I know that many 
call Peirce an objective idealist, although it is a form of realism I am not 
sure that this concept covers his combination of Tychism and synechism with a 
semiotic worldview. I think Peirce’s view is unique. But your mail does put the 
focus on the importance of discussion the ontology behind the various 
informational paradigms.

What do we mean when we use the term real for instance about Lupasco’s physical 
– biological – contradictorial information? As I understand the term has been 
pretty important for your view.



Best

   Søren



From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner
Sent: 16. december 2017 10:15
To: fis 
Subject: [Fis] Comes the Revolution



Dear Pedro, Dear FISers,



I regret that I have difficulty in relating to the current FIS discussion, but 
that is my problem. I see little progress since the appearance of  Lupasco’s 
physical – biological – contradictorial information; Kauffman, Logan’s biotic 
and Ulanowicz’ apophatic information; Deacon’s Shannon – Boltzmann – Darwin 
information; and Wu’s revolution. Sungchul’s intuition of an “irreversible 
triadic relation” reflects the power of triads as cognitive attractors, but 
discussion is blocked by his use of the word ‘irreversible’, required by the 
underlying idealist Peircean structure of his argument.



What I would like to see is the foundations of information being discussed in 
relation to the real problems of society, beyond questionnaires. Some of these 
led yesterday to a prohibition of the use of seven words including foetus, 
diversity and science-based from certain U. S. Government documents. I think we 
need to have in the forefront of our minds the statement made by Floridi in his 
2010 book, Information. A Very Short Introduction (which all of you have read, 
of course): “The challenge is to reconcile our roles as informational organisms 
and agents within nature and as stewards of nature.”



I believe that such a perspective, placed as a criterion for selection of 
pertinent concepts, would make our discussions a lot deeper and more relevant.



Thank you and best wishes,



Joesph



[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]


Garanti sans virus. 
www.avast.com



___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Comes the Revolution. The Real

2017-12-16 Thread Sungchul Ji 
Hi Joeph,


You wrote on December 16 as follows:


" Sungchul’s intuition of an “irreversible triadic relation” reflects the power 
of triads as cognitive attractors, but discussion is blocked by his use of the 
word ‘irreversible’, required by the underlying idealist Peircean structure of 
his argument."


Please correct "irreversible" to "irreducible".  This may have caused some 
confusions in your understanding of my argument and Peirce's.  The former is 
primarily a thermodynamic concept whereas the latter is a logical one, in my 
opinion.


Sung




From: Fis  on behalf of Joseph Brenner 

Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 11:56 AM
To: 'Søren Brier'; 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] Comes the Revolution. The Real


Dear Søren,



Thank you for a positive and constructive note and question. Although I 
maintain my critique of Peirce’s tychism and synechism and his concepts of and 
manipulations of signs and diagrams, I have always seen value in many of his 
intuitions. I would be glad to consider him a ‘humanist with a semiotic 
worldview’. It takes all kinds . . .



I think for participants in this list to say what they mean by reality, exactly 
for, as you put it, a discussion of the ontology and science behind various 
informational paradigms, would be very useful. Pedro, what do you think? For me 
reality is change and stability, being and becoming, appearance and, 
contradictorially, the reality behind appearance. This is why standard logic 
doesn’t work.



Best Season’s Greetings,



Joseph



P.S. Perhaps a typo, but what is the sense of ‘treading’ in ‘treading 
processual concept’?









From: Søren Brier [mailto:sbr@cbs.dk]
Sent: samedi, 16 décembre 2017 13:28
To: Joseph Brenner; fis
Subject: RE: [Fis] Comes the Revolution



Dear Joseph



This very Peircean of you as “The challenge is to reconcile our roles as 
informational organisms and agents within nature and as stewards of nature.” is 
at the centre of Peirce’s thinking instead that he uses the treading processual 
concept of sign instead of information as his basic concept . I know that many 
call Peirce an objective idealist, although it is a form of realism I am not 
sure that this concept covers his combination of Tychism and synechism with a 
semiotic worldview. I think Peirce’s view is unique. But your mail does put the 
focus on the importance of discussion the ontology behind the various 
informational paradigms.

What do we mean when we use the term real for instance about Lupasco’s physical 
– biological – contradictorial information? As I understand the term has been 
pretty important for your view.



Best

   Søren



From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner
Sent: 16. december 2017 10:15
To: fis 
Subject: [Fis] Comes the Revolution



Dear Pedro, Dear FISers,



I regret that I have difficulty in relating to the current FIS discussion, but 
that is my problem. I see little progress since the appearance of  Lupasco’s 
physical – biological – contradictorial information; Kauffman, Logan’s biotic 
and Ulanowicz’ apophatic information; Deacon’s Shannon – Boltzmann – Darwin 
information; and Wu’s revolution. Sungchul’s intuition of an “irreversible 
triadic relation” reflects the power of triads as cognitive attractors, but 
discussion is blocked by his use of the word ‘irreversible’, required by the 
underlying idealist Peircean structure of his argument.



What I would like to see is the foundations of information being discussed in 
relation to the real problems of society, beyond questionnaires. Some of these 
led yesterday to a prohibition of the use of seven words including foetus, 
diversity and science-based from certain U. S. Government documents. I think we 
need to have in the forefront of our minds the statement made by Floridi in his 
2010 book, Information. A Very Short Introduction (which all of you have read, 
of course): “The challenge is to reconcile our roles as informational organisms 
and agents within nature and as stewards of nature.”



I believe that such a perspective, placed as a criterion for selection of 
pertinent concepts, would make our discussions a lot deeper and more relevant.



Thank you and best wishes,



Joesph



[https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]


Garanti sans virus. 
www.avast.com

Re: [Fis] Comes the Revolution. The Real

2017-12-16 Thread Joseph Brenner 
Dear Søren,



Thank you for a positive and constructive note and question. Although I
maintain my critique of Peirce’s tychism and synechism and his concepts of
and manipulations of signs and diagrams, I have always seen value in many of
his intuitions. I would be glad to consider him a ‘humanist with a semiotic
worldview’. It takes all kinds . . .



I think for participants in this list to say what they mean by reality,
exactly for, as you put it, a discussion of the ontology and science behind
various informational paradigms, would be very useful. Pedro, what do you
think? For me reality is change and stability, being and becoming,
appearance and, contradictorially, the reality behind appearance. This is
why standard logic doesn’t work.



Best Season’s Greetings,



Joseph



P.S. Perhaps a typo, but what is the sense of ‘treading’ in ‘treading
processual concept’?







  _

From: Søren Brier [mailto:sbr@cbs.dk]
Sent: samedi, 16 décembre 2017 13:28
To: Joseph Brenner; fis
Subject: RE: [Fis] Comes the Revolution



Dear Joseph



This very Peircean of you as “The challenge is to reconcile our roles as
informational organisms and agents within nature and as stewards of nature.”
is at the centre of Peirce’s thinking instead that he uses the treading
processual concept of sign instead of information as his basic concept . I
know that many call Peirce an objective idealist, although it is a form of
realism I am not sure that this concept covers his combination of Tychism
and synechism with a semiotic worldview. I think Peirce’s view is unique.
But your mail does put the focus on the importance of discussion the
ontology behind the various informational paradigms.

What do we mean when we use the term real for instance about Lupasco’s
physical – biological – contradictorial information? As I understand the
term has been pretty important for your view.



Best

   Søren



From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner
Sent: 16. december 2017 10:15
To: fis 
Subject: [Fis] Comes the Revolution



Dear Pedro, Dear FISers,



I regret that I have difficulty in relating to the current FIS discussion,
but that is my problem. I see little progress since the appearance of
Lupasco’s physical – biological – contradictorial information; Kauffman,
Logan’s biotic and Ulanowicz’ apophatic information; Deacon’s Shannon –
Boltzmann – Darwin information; and Wu’s revolution. Sungchul’s intuition of
an “irreversible triadic relation” reflects the power of triads as cognitive
attractors, but discussion is blocked by his use of the word ‘irreversible’,
required by the underlying idealist Peircean structure of his argument.



What I would like to see is the foundations of information being discussed
in relation to the real problems of society, beyond questionnaires. Some of
these led yesterday to a prohibition of the use of seven words including
foetus, diversity and science-based from certain U. S. Government documents.
I think we need to have in the forefront of our minds the statement made by
Floridi in his 2010 book, Information. A Very Short Introduction (which all
of you have read, of course): “The challenge is to reconcile our roles as
informational organisms and agents within nature and as stewards of nature.”



I believe that such a perspective, placed as a criterion for selection of
pertinent concepts, would make our discussions a lot deeper and more
relevant.



Thank you and best wishes,



Joesph







Garanti sans virus.
 www.avast.com





---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel 
antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Comes the Revolution

2017-12-16 Thread Joseph Brenner 
Dear Pedro, Dear FISers,



I regret that I have difficulty in relating to the current FIS discussion,
but that is my problem. I see little progress since the appearance of
Lupasco's physical - biological - contradictorial information; Kauffman,
Logan's biotic and Ulanowicz' apophatic information; Deacon's Shannon -
Boltzmann - Darwin information; and Wu's revolution. Sungchul's intuition of
an "irreversible triadic relation" reflects the power of triads as cognitive
attractors, but discussion is blocked by his use of the word 'irreversible',
required by the underlying idealist Peircean structure of his argument.



What I would like to see is the foundations of information being discussed
in relation to the real problems of society, beyond questionnaires. Some of
these led yesterday to a prohibition of the use of seven words including
foetus, diversity and science-based from certain U. S. Government documents.
I think we need to have in the forefront of our minds the statement made by
Floridi in his 2010 book, Information. A Very Short Introduction (which all
of you have read, of course): "The challenge is to reconcile our roles as
informational organisms and agents within nature and as stewards of nature."



I believe that such a perspective, placed as a criterion for selection of
pertinent concepts, would make our discussions a lot deeper and more
relevant.



Thank you and best wishes,



Joesph



---
L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel 
antivirus Avast.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis