[FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction

Wed Jan 9 16:31:06 EST 2019

Nick, no so much ...

 ... as reification seems to be unavoidable, and hence I am guilty as
 charged. Everything is the fault of that pesky verb "to be," as
 Korzibski warned us.
davew

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 1:54 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> Uh-Oh.  Dave’s on the case.  I am in DEEP trouble here.

>  

> Can I assert that anything is real without implying that some things
> are “unreal” and, since we are talking about them, must be mere
> matters of the mind.    In other words, can one be a monist realist?>  

> I admit that things aren’t looking good for that position. 

>  

> However, for your part, inconsistency-wise in your note you trade on
> the notion of the real to challenge realism.  You assert that there
> is something that is the customs of that tribe, that there is some
> that those customs define as man and woman, and that those customs
> are so demanding … so real … that they require some men to adopt part
> of the role of women to serve other men.  Yes I am the pot calling
> the kettle black.>  

> To be honest, I don’t know how we get out of this mess.  One solution
> I am exploring is trying to make every assertion that something is
> real into a three valued assertion including point of view.  If you
> come stand where I am standing, you will see what I see. That you can
> see what I see from where I stand is The Real.>  

> I have to admit, seeing the Wittgenstein quote unnerved me.   In his
> family resemblance model there needs only to be a network of
> associations but no constant in that network that anchors it and keeps
> it from drifting off.>  

> *My wife got mad at me because I put my dogs on the coffee table.*

> *Why did she get mad?*

> *Because she says the nails scratch the table.*

> *So, why don’t you trim the nails?*

> *Well, I probably would have to have the whole shoe resoled. *

> *Why do you call your shoes “dogs”?  I thought they were quite
> handsome.*> *Well, I call them that because they have been enduring and reliable
> and trustworthy.   Best shoes I ever had.*> *Dogged?*

> *Right*

> *Will you be sorry to see them go when they are worn out?*

> *Yeah, doggone it.*

> And so on. 

>  

> I suspect that there may be a way out of this via Peirce’s sign
> theory, but I have never understood Peirce’s sign theory, try as I
> might.  I am not even sure there is a there there.  I.e., not sure
> that there is a real thing called Peirce’s Sign Theory.> Nick

> Nicholas S. Thompson

> Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

> Clark University

> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

>  

> *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Prof
> David West *Sent:* Wednesday, January 09, 2019 10:38 AM *To:*
> friam at redfish.com *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Motives - Was Abduction>  

>  

> Aww Nick,

>  

> Surely you jest: "Something about the category is real."

>  

> Real? 

> Real, as in dualist metaphysics?

> Or merely real in the sense that there is a group of humans willing to
> behave in a manner consistent with a pretend belief that a labeled
> category is real?>  

> About a decade back there were ten states (Oregon's courts recently
> struck down this kind of law, so I think Texas is the last remaining
> state where this is true) that presenting yourself a "software
> engineer" was a minor felony. This despite the fact that universities
> in those states issued hundreds if not thousands of diplomas reading
> software engineering. The activities typically associated with
> 'software engineering', primary among them, programming, were being
> practiced for nearly 20 years before the phrase"software engineering"
> was first uttered. [[LEO I, first business computer, in 1951 -
> software engineering first coined in 1968.]]>  

> Transgender as a term, let alone a category, is, in the culture most
> of the FRIAM list exist within, is less than fifty-years old. [The
> Sioux had a term,"berdache," for men that dressed and behaved as women
> while providing sexual services to men observing the 7-year post-
> partum sex with spouse taboo. And there are hundreds of terms in other
> cultures not afflicted with the need to disambiguate absolutely
> everything.]>  

> Can you offer an example of a category where membership criteria is
> not completely arbitrary and does not change over time? A category
> that is not not constantly 're-defined' in light of new information?
> (I am thinking here of biological categories like Linneaus's taxonomy
> of categories replaced with DNA-based categories, being questioned
> and on the verge of re-definition as we recognize how "muddled" DNA
> can be.)>  

> Can a "category" ever be more than a "metaphor?"

>  

> When it comes to human beings; can categorization ever rise above
> being an expression of differentiation between thee and me? It seems
> to me that categorization is, mostly, little more than a disguised
> expression of xenophobia.>  

> davew

>  

>  

>  

>  

> On Wed, Jan 9, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote:

>> Nick writes:

>>  

>> < Ok, Marcus, I am standing my ground as a realist here: ():-[) >

>>  

>> There you go trying to claim semantics for terms in a public
>> dictionary again.   (That’s an example of taking ground, like in my
>> Go example.)    Doing so constrains what can even be *said*.   It
>> puts the skeptic in the position of having to deconstruct every
>> single term, and thus be a called terms like smartass[1] when they
>> force the terms to be used in other contexts where the definition
>> doesn’t work.   A culture itself is laden with thousands of de-
>> facto definitions that steer meaning back to conventional (e.g.
>> racist and sexist) expectations.   To even to begin to question
>> these expectations requires having some power base, or safe space,
>> to work from.>>  

>> In this case, you assert that some discussants are software engineers
>> and that distinguishes them from your category.  A discussant of that
>> (accused / implied) type says he is not a member of that set and that
>> it is not even a credible set.  Another discussant says the activity
>> of such a group is a skill and if someone lacks it, they could just
>> as well gain it while having other co-equal skills too.   So there is
>> already reason to doubt the categorization you are suggesting.>>  

>> < You cannot be against categories because you cannot TALK without
>> categories.  “person” and “dog” are categories. Yes, the thought they
>> call up in me is inevitably wrong in some respect.  I see you with
>> Korgies, but they are actually Irish Wolf Hounds.  You cannot bake a
>> sentence without breaking some categories, yet the categories endure.
>> Something about the category is real.  >>>  

>> Are you claiming that the concept of membership in particular
>> biological species is a subjective concept?   That I am hijacking the
>> meaning of a person or a dog?  Really?>>  

>> < So, if you are not against categorization, per se, and since all
>> categories do violence of one sort or another, you must be against
>> categories that do more violence than they do good.  So, when I
>> called you a gazelle, what violence did I do?  Would I have done
>> better to call you a Wildebeest?  Would I be more or less
>> disappointed in my expectations had I called you a Springbok?  >>>  

>> For example, it would be better to call the young person in this
>> story a girl.   That requires having the cognitive flexibility to
>> recognize that some terms are dynamic or at least a matter of debate.>>  

>> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/opinion/trans-teen-transition.html>>  

>> Marcus

>> ============================================================

>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

>> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com>> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

>> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

>  

> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Links:

  1. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/kellyanne-conway-embarrasses-cnns-jim-acosta-during-heated-exchange
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20190109/f4a706e7/attachment.html>