[FRIAM] Dope Slap Thread

[David Eric Smith]

Thanks Nick,

I need to affirm and thank Glen for the other post, which does indeed attach to just what I was requesting.  But I won’t be able to get to that today.

I wanted to reply to this one yesterday, and will hope the idea hasn’t faded enough to miss what seemed to me an interesting direction your response below can go.

A denial of status for “the underlying” seems, to me, to be the evil cult that Neo-PoMo is selling.  Back to that in a second, but as that thought comes up, I recall Glen’s arguments over the hears that post-modernism wasn’t born evil; its later generations of carriers turned it into that.

But from this thread, I have a new articulation of what the non-evil early post-modernism might have been, or might have become.  One might say that, had post-modernism gone in its best direction, it would have been the project of showing how difficult and subtle a true pragmatism is, when one realizes that everything is “up for grabs”, to settle into a shorthand I used in the first post for the various unpackings I wrote later to mean the same thing.

It would absolutely not have been a denial of any status for “the underlying”, bur rather a call to understand what is the nature of the status of “the underlying” in relation to our activity, which can include both “within our activity” and “as context for our activity”.  

I don’t think one escapes it, and I think your statement below affirms how much you haven’t let it go, because you can’t.

You say “statistics is all we got”.  If you think “you[‘ve] got” statistics, then you have just committed to "a belief” (not a great word, but let me not digress to look for a better one) in an underlying that, in fact, you don’t have, or so I claim.  The categories, the activities of observing and casting-in-language that attach quantities to them, a language and logic of quantities, bring into existence quantity-concepts, accepted tracks of argument to manipulate them.  Without all that machinery, you don’t “have” any “statistics” to “do”.  In thinking “you[‘ve] got” it, you have just made the essential commitment to “an underlying” that creates a starting point from which the rest of your thought and discourse can even emanate.  To understand how and why you have done that, and probably why you have had to do that, is the exercise of figuring out what the status of “the underlying” is.  I think the correct point of view is that all that framework “statistics” that you act toward _as if_ “you[‘ve] got”, is structurally just another fluctuating pattern, analogous in its status to the sample-estimator values assigned to particular quantities that get used when you apply statistical conventions to some particular collection of experiences. 

Remember that I wrote, originally and then again in the second post, that the language of “sample estimators in relation to the underlying” was meant as an analogy — within a frame taken as the context to express it — for the much more interesting problem of arriving at faithful renderings.  _Within_ the illustration used to express the analogy, “the underlying” certainly exists, in the sense that it has as well-defined roles in the structure of the process as the states of knowledge which are values for the sample estimators.  I did _not_ say, and precisely did not _mean_ that the concreteness that “the underlying” has in the illustration of doing a statistical inference problem — more precisely, the peer status of the underlying and the sample-estimator values, which are precisely _as concrete_ as each other, however concrete that is, within that frame — then transports through to a comparably concrete “underlying” in pragmatism in the sense of truth-notions.  The intended service of the analogy is that it allows us to see both sample estimators and their “underlying” concretely, and thereby to recognize the differentness of their places in our own thought organization and use.  It is that thought organization and use that (as I am proposing it) maps through the analogy from the illustrative cartoon of a statistical inference application, to the general case of “coming to terms” with “the world".  But precisely because the frame that makes “the underlying” given, in the illustrating cartoon, does _not_ map through the analogy, we have a new project of understanding the nature of “the underlying” in the truth-notion problem.  

In my little self-invented world of uninformed story-telling, where that was what could be seen in early post-modernism, one can see how through whatever combination of error or malevolence, later generations (the Neo-PoMoists) would have heard (probably, by disposition, _chosen_ to hear) the original postmodern call to figure out the nature of the status of the underlying as a denial that there is any such status, reducing all of life to brute competitions for power, to which they then dedicated themselves, because that’s the kind of people they are.  But that life is same-old same-old.  For postmodernism to have become the next stage in a serious project of pragmatism would, to me, have been very interesting.

Many thanks, 

Eric


> On Jan 18, 2023, at 5:41 AM, Nicholas Thompson <thompnickson2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I am finding what Mail.google <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fMail.google&c=E,1,oTroWtMEEiR-NXSvzbvTXwTxraw30bZ5Vqe84jNaHS8eF5vahfunyIUjdzzI5_lCc4LtthbLJffakVXWMRmc3tC6LE7d3ypXuyZH1u5TSA1KiQ,,&typo=1&ancr_add=1> does to messages so confusing that I am gong to try to simplify here. 
> 
> EricS writes
> 
> 
> My liking of the analogy of sample estimators and underlying  values Ii.e.values on which the estimations converge--NST] is that, if one felt that were a valid analogy to a specific aspects of Peirce’s truth-relative-to-states-of-knowledge concept, it would completely clear the fog of philosophical profundity from Peirce, and say that this idea, for a modern quantitative reader, is an everyday commonplace, and one that we can easily examine at all levels from our habits to our formalism, and study the structure of in cognition.
> 
> To which I can only respond:
> 
> Y E S !!!!
> I did feel obligated to reframe the word "underlying" because it adds back a bit of the mystery that I am so glad to see expunged.  Another way for thinking about Peirce is to say that  cognition is a statistical project and statistics is all we got.  Peirce is trying as hard as possible NOT to be profound. 
> Nick
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,-UzI9UFLOH_XRM1YLbR3_eo-IJj9UAAahCJGU_eBtrx77BwB4ZJZZwDZe2NF6vWCOKcCsuzhzh2LCGU0i_sbtwFK_4uQi75mX7RNaJ-O&typo=1
> to (un)subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,1FFymyyh9-0wJZlve-YZIRpgKo4u8Ff3CmqiyZh19HHCOMsWwfxdUWZiw_-P6vQJpoSB8AxFRoVrTXAUm_go8Iwv5k5C0yZFJ7GjLryc&typo=1
> FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,nQr7vLM_36POR4IvYZDQZvAzOUDGcrWKDH4t_uHJcFS4joxamwlRWjiN33HJO_GZig0A5LUTa6ME8L7Ga4oy9byc38SwVn61CUTNCHXGw_uI7w,,&typo=1
> archives:  5/2017 thru present https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,h38PgP6cY-Sn4mqpDBerkFeBg5SMYAlbf-R7erkOWNxEUYJZmkwUB2mCjI-t_Ie_VRpM5i850ae60gyr3IDClNQi6PGkIDycrMnYftTI&typo=1
>  1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20230119/e236d360/attachment.html>