[FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here

Sun Feb 14 23:23:30 EST 2021

Nick,

A minor clarification if I remember my analysis of variance course
correctly.  You can use either an additive model or a non- additive model.
You just have to explain your choice and why you made it.  But the total
variance remains the same.

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sun, Feb 14, 2021, 9:14 PM <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jon,
>
>
>
>
>
> I like your idea of a public letter.  It grows out of things Glen has said
> about the implicit hypocrisy of writing to a person while posting to a
> list.  I think he is wrong about that, but in a right sort of way.  I think
> one can have a discussion with one person as a performance before an
> interested audience without being a hypocrite.   The aspiration is to draw
> the larger audience in and to see the larger scope of the discussion.
>
>
>
> So I will answer as "Nick" if not as Nick.
>
>
>
> Please see Larding, below.
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of jon zingale
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 12:14 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> Is there a technical word for an essay one writes in preparation for
> another essay? I have been struggling over the last several weeks to write
> two essays, one preparatory on Euclid's second proposition (choices andm*[NST===>I
> have written such preparatory essays.  I call them “rants”.  My parents use
> to talk about authors that had to write whole ranting BOOKS before they
> could get down to write the essay that anybody would red.  Much of the
> critique that Glen was mounting on Friday is to the effect that one must
> not confuse one’s rants with the final product.  <===nst] * isdirections)
> and the other on Chris Marker's *Le Jetee*. The role of Euclid's second
> will be to aid in an explication of Marker's conception of time travel and
> causality. This connection is perhaps what got me so entranced by the
> discussion of Bayesian networks. Did you ever clarify for yourself what
> *screening-off* is?
>
> *[NST===>The problem in teaching something to someone else is never that
> they don’t know what X is; it is that they already KNOW what x is and their
> knowledge is just plain wrong.  I know that that violates the tradition
> definition of “knowledge”, but so be it.  The philosophical definition of
> “knowledge” (justified true belief) is just insane.  My breakthrough on
> screening off occurred when I realized that it meant the exact opposite of
> what I thought it meant.  I have yet to work that insight through the whole
> paper, so cannot promise that I “have it”, even now, but will let you know.
>  <===nst] *
>
>  I continue to hope that my contributions to that discussion will inspire
> you to tell me more about the connection you see to *variation
> partitioning*, an idea I wish to understand better and that you seem to
> understand well.
>
>
>
> *[NST===>Oh.  The idea of variance partitioning is so primitive and so
> PsychMethods 101 that I am sure I have rendered it so badly that you just
> don’t recognize it.  It is just the idea that one can partition all the
> variations within any data set from the mean of that data set, into main
> effects, interactions between main effects, ….etc…… and residual variance
> or “error”.  Under certain assumptions which statisticians take seriously
> but all psychologists ignore, these partitions are additive so that the
> error variance plus all the main effects, plus all the interactions, sums
> up to the variance of the whole data set from the set mean.  It’s relation
> to screening off is probably either wrong or so obscure as to not be worthy
> of consideration.  *
>
>
>
> *<===nst] *
>
>
>
> Some time ago, you mentioned the role of *seduction*
>
> *[NST===>I would be surprised if I was so blatant as to use that word;
> however, I do believe that it is the burden of the writer to meet the
> reader on his/her own territory and bring him or home.  Now, nobody ever
> writes to every audiences, so it is an important role of introductions to
> declare one’s audience, so others can ignore one’s writing and get on with
> their lives.  We violate that rule all the time in FRIAM which is why it is
> such a mess and such fun.  <===nst] *
>
> in conversation.I am listening to a series of interviews with Giles Deleuze
>
> *[NST===>I just don’t know how you  find the time.  I am guessing you can
> do so because you can code and listen to podcasts at the same time.  What a
> wonderful thing that must be.  <===nst] *
>
>  and he mentions the disdain he has for talking, and from what I can tell
> it is this quality, that of seduction that makes talking dirty in
> comparison to writing. Would you write more on seduction?
>
> *[NST===>Seduction implies dissembling, right?  I don’t think there is any
> deception in good argumentative writing, any more than there is deception
> in a chess move.  It’s all there to be seen.  Your hope is to position the
> readers so they see – if only briefly – your  world as you see it.  If
> readers come to see their world as you see it, that’s a bonus.    <===nst] *
>
> Also along the trajectory of a Deleuzian dive, I am working through his
> text *Difference and Repetition*. He writes about an
> extensional-intensional distinction in the concept of repetition that I
> find fascinating,*[NST===>I haven’t given up on writing something on the
> i/e distinction in relation to the “epiphenomenator” so this interest
> me<===nst] * *repetition* is in relation to something unique or singular
> having no equal or equivalent. He writes:
>
>
>
> """
>
> But in any case, generality expresses a point of view according to which
> one term may be exchanged or substituted for another. The exchange or
> substitution of particulars defines our conduct in relation to
> generality...By contrast, we can see that repetition is a necessary and
> justified conduct only in relation to that which cannot be replaced.
>
> """
>
>
>
> He gives an example that I can relate with, poetry:
>
>
>
> """
>
> It is not by chance that a poem must be learned by heart. The head is the
> organ of exchange, but the heart is the amorous organ of repetition. Pius
> Servien rightly distinguished two languages: the language of science,
> dominated by the symbol of equality, in which each term may be replaced by
> others; and lyrical language, in which every term is irreplaceable and can
> only be repeated.
>
> """
>
>
>
> Of course, now I have to remember why I felt it important to share this
> with you. Maybe it was this... Seduction can only repeat. Recently, you
> mentioned a modality that I sympathize with, going to speak and finding
> yourself developing an argument. There is the desire to develop, clarify
> and share a concept. On philosophy, Deleuze mentions the posing of
> problems and the creation of concepts. He speaks about their relation, that
> with Leibniz, say, he presents the *monad* and this *concept* is found
> necessary or is somehow manifest, from an underlying *problem*.
>
>
>
> To read philosophy is to suss out those *unenunciated* (latent?) problems
> philosophers aim at with their concepts. Is it fair to say that concepts
> belong to the world of generality and exist to clarify and facilitate the
> exploration of problems, problems that belong to the world of repetition?
>
> You appear to have a certain fondness for philosophy, and even if only
> through Peirce, I invite your reflections.
>
> *[NST===>I think Peirce might say that there are no singular objects.  If
> an object were genuinely singular, would would not be able to see it.
> <===nst] *
>
>
>
> Jon
>
> *[NST===>I have to quit, now; this is the best I can do. [sigh]<===nst] *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> Nick Thompson
>
> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
>
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of jon zingale
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 2021 12:14 PM
> To: friam at redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] A public letter to Nick, cc: any that write here
>
>
>
> Nick,
>
>
>
> Is there a technical word for an essay one writes in preparation for
> another essay? I have been struggling over the last several weeks to write
> two essays, one preparatory on Euclid's second proposition (choices and
>
> misdirections) and the other on Chris Marker's *Le Jetee*. The role of
> Euclid's second will be to aid in an explication of Marker's conception of
> time travel and causality. This connection is perhaps what got me so
> entranced by the discussion of Bayesian networks. Did you ever clarify for
> yourself what *screening-off* is? I continue to hope that my contributions
> to that discussion will inspire you to tell me more about the connection
> you see to *variation partitioning*, an idea I wish to understand better
> and that you seem to understand well.
>
>
>
> Some time ago, you mentioned the role of *seduction* in conversation. I am
> listening to a series of interviews with Giles Deleuze and he mentions the
> disdain he has for talking, and from what I can tell it is this quality,
> that of seduction that makes talking dirty in comparison to writing. Would
> you write more on seduction?
>
>
>
> Also along the trajectory of a Deleuzian dive, I am working through his
> text *Difference and Repetition*. He writes about an
> extensional-intensional distinction in the concept of repetition that I
> find fascinating,
>
> *repetition* is in relation to something unique or singular having no
> equal or equivalent. He writes:
>
>
>
> """
>
> But in any case, generality expresses a point of view according to which
> one term may be exchanged or substituted for another. The exchange or
> substitution of particulars defines our conduct in relation to
> generality...By contrast, we can see that repetition is a necessary and
> justified conduct only in relation to that which cannot be replaced.
>
> """
>
>
>
> He gives an example that I can relate with, poetry:
>
>
>
> """
>
> It is not by chance that a poem must be learned by heart. The head is the
> organ of exchange, but the heart is the amorous organ of repetition. Pius
> Servien rightly distinguished two languages: the language of science,
> dominated by the symbol of equality, in which each term may be replaced by
> others; and lyrical language, in which every term is irreplaceable and can
> only be repeated.
>
> """
>
>
>
> Of course, now I have to remember why I felt it important to share this
> with you. Maybe it was this... Seduction can only repeat. Recently, you
> mentioned a modality that I sympathize with, going to speak and finding
> yourself developing an argument. There is the desire to develop, clarify
> and share a concept. On philosophy, Deleuze mentions the posing of
> problems and the creation of concepts. He speaks about their relation, that
> with Leibniz, say, he presents the *monad* and this *concept* is found
> necessary or is somehow manifest, from an underlying *problem*.
>
>
>
> To read philosophy is to suss out those *unenunciated* (latent?) problems
> philosophers aim at with their concepts. Is it fair to say that concepts
> belong to the world of generality and exist to clarify and facilitate the
> exploration of problems, problems that belong to the world of repetition?
>
> You appear to have a certain fondness for philosophy, and even if only
> through Peirce, I invite your reflections.
>
>
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
>
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
>
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210214/c0ddb46c/attachment.html>