[FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

Ad hominem comments: 

 

Ok, in the absence of good data, I will assume that I am correct.  You are the older brother two younger siblings;  I am the younger brother to two older siblings.  My psychology is to be constantly catching up;  your psychology is to be constantly trying to stay ahead.  Normally that goes on until the older sibling dies and the younger sibling gets to catch up by saying something wise at the memorial service.  Unfortunately,  I am at least twenty years older than you, so I am doomed never to catchup.  I am Sisiphus, perpetually rolling my damned stone up your damned hill.  But I love you anyway.

 

Substantive comments in larding below.

 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 1:54 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

 

Right. So we disagree in 3 points: convergence, 

need for a referent, and foundations. And I answered your sibling question a long time ago. But the answer is irrelevant. So I choose not to answer it again. >8^D

 

The 3 points of disagreement:

 

1) Ignore convergence.

[NST===> Then why are we bothering to argue.  It creates a tension in me that we disagree; I infer that  no such tension is felt by you.  I revert to my ad hominem argument above. <===nst] 

2) need for a referent:

 

  · You say logical argument depends on what's being talked about.

  · I say logical argument depends only on the logic used.

[NST===>I am not (today) making a claim that logic depends on content;  I am only making the claim that logic grows out of experience in much the same way that truths do and that, therefore, logic arises from content, and is, usually, related to it.<===nst] 

 

3) foundations:

 

  · You: the faith in logical unification/foundation is essential [NST===>to<===nst] inquiry.

  · Me: logics are gaming structures to be assumed and abandoned at will.

 

Re (2), I am NOT saying logics are "relative as applied". Logics are independent of their application. *Reason* (or whatever other word you choose for standard thinking and navigating the world) includes the application of logic, the assignment of meaning to various logical symbols.

[NST===>I guess we do disagree, then.  You believe that logics are pulled out  of our … um…; I believe that they arise from the trod down midden of experience.  They are proposals about how truth is to be found. I am therefore not a foundationalist.  <===nst] 

 

[NST===>I return to my ad hominem argument.  I am seeking to agree; you are happier when you disagree.  B.I.L.Y.A.  <===nst] 

 

On 12/1/20 11:33 AM,  <mailto:thompnickson2 at gmail.com> thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:

> So, except with respect to my longing for convergence, we agree.  See larding below :

> 

> 

> 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Friam < <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???

> Sent: Tuesday, December 1, 2020 1:21 PM

> To:  <mailto:friam at redfish.com> friam at redfish.com

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] New ways of understanding the world

> 

> But you said "we may hope to discover and agree upon fundamental principles underlying all logics". I was simply checking that and saying I neither hope for that, nor believe it possible.[NST===>I both hope for it and believe it is ultimately possible.  Most of all, I believe that that faith is essential inquiry.  This is here e disagree? <===nst]   

> 

> And the important part of what I expressed was that logic does NOT depend on what we're talking about. It is referent-independent. No semiotic object is necessary. Only the sign and the interpretant are necessary. The object ... the "checkin with the world" is necessary for reason, but not logic. And reason relies on logic, but is not limited to it.

> [NST===>Oh, gosh, I guess we do disagree here, too.  But I think you 

> disagree with yourself.  If all logics are relative as applied, what 

> could they possibly be relative TO other than content?? <===nst]

> 

> And a third point is that it is NOT subject to any kind of in the long run convergence. Logics are games. They are set up and played and none of them will ever go away. You or I may get bored of one or the other. But they'll all still have their place.

> [NST===>And what exactly is their place?<===nst]

> 

> Did you answer my question about birth order? I am preparing an ad hominem argument I and I need some data.  

 

--

↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

 

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .

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> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

archives:  <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/> http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

FRIAM-COMIC  <http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/> http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20201201/ff3e3885/attachment.html>