Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 14

Re: C.S. Peirce, Spencer Brown, and Me • 11
Re: Laws of FormDirk Baecker

DB:
Watzlawick’s request for a pragmatic calculus of communication up to now was never appropriately answered.  W. Barnett Pearce and Vernon E. Cronen (Communication, Action, and Meaning : The Creation of Social Realities, 1980) did important studies on this as did Anthony Wilden (System and Structure : Essays in Communication and Exchange, 1972), but we still lack it.

Dear Dirk,

Watzlawick’s request for a pragmatic calculus of communication recalls McCulloch’s earlier question whether the human capacity for insightful learning and reasoning demands a grasp of trans-dyadic relations, or not.

But the problem of insight, or intuition, or invention — call it what you will — we do not understand, although many of us are having a go at it.  […]  Tarski thinks that what we lack is a fertile calculus of relations of more than two relata.  I am inclined to agree with him, and if I were now the age I was in 1917, that is the problem I would tackle.

That process of insight by which a child learns at least one logical particle, neither or not both, when it is given only ostensively — and one must be so learned — is still a little beyond us.  It may perhaps have to wait for a potent logic of triadic relations, but I now doubt it.  (McCulloch, p. 15).

The way I see things today, my motto would be Context Precedes Calculus if I had to sum it up as briefly as possible.  In other words, the first order of business is finding the right context for understanding the phenomena and problems at hand.  As far as the human capacity for conversing with nature and our fellows goes, pragmatic thinkers informed by Peirce would no doubt point to the context of triadic sign relations and declare, “Eureka!  This Must Be The Place.” 

References

  • McCulloch, Warren S. (1961), “What Is a Number that a Man May Know It, and a Man, that He May Know a Number?”, Ninth Alfred Korzybski Memorial Lecture, General Semantics Bulletin, Numbers 26 and 27, pp. 7–18, Institute of General Semantics, Lakeville, CT.  Reprinted in Embodiments of Mind, pp. 1–18.  Online (1) (2).
  • McCulloch, Warren S. (1965), Embodiments of Mind, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

cc: CyberneticsLaws of FormOntolog ForumStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in Abstraction, Amphecks, Analogy, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Cybernetics, Deduction, Differential Logic, Duality, Form, Graph Theory, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Time, Topology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Charles Sanders Peirce, George Spencer Brown, and Me • 14

  1. Pingback: Survey of Animated Logical Graphs • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.