Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf : Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 13
At : http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/03/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-13/

Re: FB | Charles S. Peirce Society
At: https://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/
Re: John Corcoran
At: https://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/permalink/1733064366829548/

I looked at John Corcoran's contribution on Formalizing Pragmatic Truth
( https://www.academia.edu/s/e98bbab60f/formalizing-pragmatic-truth )
but I did not see anything near enough what I'd recognize as a
pragmatic theory of truth.

Pragmatic inquiry into a putative concept of truth would begin
by applying the pragmatic maxim to clarify the concept so far as
possible and a pragmatic definition of truth, if any should result,
would be formulated within Peirce's theory of logic as formal semiotics,
in other words, stated in terms of a formal theory of triadic sign relations.

Regards,

Jon

[Stephen Paul King]

Could we define truth as an invariant with respect to translations between languages? 

IOW, if a sentence is true, then it will be true in any language (that is sufficiently expressive to contain its semantic content).

Virus-free. www.avast.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/454d0cb8-2b34-cde3-be95-c08bbca62be3%40att.net.

--

Kindest Regards,

Stephen Paul King

Senior Researcher

Mobile: (864) 567-3099

Step...@provensecure.com

 http://www.provensecure.us/

 “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

[Jon Awbrey]

Stephen, All,

There are many conceptions of truth -- linguistic, model-theoretic,
proof-theoretic -- for the moment I'm focused on cybernetic, systems,
and experimental sciences and this is where the pragmatic conception
of truth fits what we naturally do in those sciences remarkably well.

The main thing in those activities is the relationship among symbol systems,
the world, and our actions, whether in thought, among ourselves, or between
ourselves and the world. So the notion of truth we want here is predicated
on three dimensions: the patch of the world we are dealing with in a given
application, the systems of signs we are using to describe that domain, and
the transformations of signs we find of good service in bearing information
about that piece of the world.

I'll dig up some material on the pragmatic conception of truth ...

Regards,

Jon

On 11/5/2019 10:32 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
> Could we define truth as an invariant with respect to
> translations between languages?
>
> IOW, if a sentence is true, then it will be true in any language
> (that is sufficiently expressive to contain its semantic content).
>
>

[Krippendorff, Klaus]

This definition doesn’t define truth.  

A language is embedded in the communications among many speakers interactions with their worlds. 

No translation is perfect as it passes from one world into a different one. 

Klaus

Sent from my iPhone

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BRcsSj%2Bwr%3DDRo%2BghLLN0zT%3D8%2BARTubmo3LZyxSeEE9d4b-S4g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jon Awbrey]

All,

There was a discussion of "Pragmatic Truth" on the Peirce List
a couple years ago, in turn reviewing efforts made on pertinent
Wikipedia articles a dozen years before. It might be useful to
repost portions of that discussion here. Here's a link to the
anchor post of my blog rehash:

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 1

At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/

I haven't looked at these articles since the days I wasted trying to
justify the ways of Peirce to Wikipediots, other than to reformat them
a little here and there, but some of their material may be instructive
for ongoing discussions, especially the quotes from Peirce and Kant on
the nominal character of truth definitions in terms of correspondence.
To make the shortest possible shrift, we need to keep in mind that
"correspondence" for Peirce can mean "triple correspondence",
in other words, just another name for a triadic relation.

Resources
=========

* Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
: https://oeis.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Theory_Of_Truth

* Correspondence Theory Of Truth
: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Correspondence_theory_of_truth

Note. The document histories of these OeisWiki and InterSciWiki forks
tell me these drafts derive from Wikipedia revisions of 14 Feb 2007
and 29 Jun 2006, respectively.

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

[Louis H Kauffman]

Dear Stephen,

I think that it is best to go back to elementary situations involving truth.

One has a proposition that makes a statement about a certain state of affairs.

For example, “This box contains five cards and four distinct suits among them.”

The truth of the statement can be verified by opening the box.

As we know, such proclamations are troublesome at the boundaries of physicality or intelligibility.

“This program contains an algorithm to list all the prime numbers less than a given natural number n.”

You cannot just look in the box. You can experiment by running the program. But this will only verify a finite number of cases.

No computer experiment can verify the truth of this statement. But a sharp computer scientist may be able to read that program and verify that indeed it does have 

a working algorithm. To check that the algorithm is correct requires mathematical reasoning and analysis of the context in which it is written. 

The truth will out, but it is not so simple as a direct observation.

Some statements are not decided: Let n be a natural number. Consider the iteration — If n is even, replace n by n/2. If n is odd, replace n by 3n +1.

Collatz Assertion: This iteration will eventually produce the number 1, no matter what natural number is chosen for the starting value.

It is unknown whether the Collatz Assertion is True or False. 

No one has ever seen a counterexample to it.

No one has given an acceptable mathematical proof of its validity.

In the usual epistemology of mathematics, the Collatz assertion is either True or it is False. 

We just do not know which it is.

Think about these actualities in relation to the meaning of truth.

I do not think that invariance with respect to translation is sufficient to capture the notion of truth.

Best,

Lou

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BRcsSj%2Bwr%3DDRo%2BghLLN0zT%3D8%2BARTubmo3LZyxSeEE9d4b-S4g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 15
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/10/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-15/

All,

The way of inquiry being blocked on Wikipedia, I saved the fork of
Pragmatic Truth to which I contributed a goodly helping of morsels
to several other wikis over the years. The last of those renderings
begins as follows:

<QUOTE>

Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
https://oeis.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Theory_Of_Truth

"Pragmatic theory of truth" refers to those accounts, definitions,
and theories of the concept "truth" distinguishing the philosophies
of pragmatism and pragmaticism. The conception of truth in question
varies along lines reflecting the influence of several thinkers,
initially and notably, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and
John Dewey, but a number of common features can be identified.

The most characteristic features are (1) a reliance on the pragmatic maxim
( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/07/pragmatic-maxim/ ) as a means
of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts, "truth "in particular,
and (2) an emphasis on the fact that the product variously branded as
belief, certainty, knowledge, or truth is the result of a process,
namely, inquiry.

</QUOTE>

Regards,

Jon

On 11/6/2019 2:20 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> All,
>
> There was a discussion of "Pragmatic Truth" on the Peirce List
> a couple years ago, in turn reviewing efforts made on pertinent

> Wikipedia articles a dozen years before.?? It might be useful to
> repost portions of that discussion here.?? Here's a link to the

[Louis H Kauffman]

Dear Jason,

Given a mapping F:D —> D where D is any mathematical domain (e.g. an arbitrary set), an eigenform is a fixed point of F, possibly in some larger domain D’, extending D. In this way, every F has a corresponding eigenform E with F(E) = E. The way this is proved is to construct E = F(F(F(F…))), the infinite concatenation of F upon itself. Sometimes this formal eigenform is related to the original domain D and sometimes it absconds (or transcends) well beyond that domain. There are many examples. I will give a few for reference.

1. D = R, the real numbers. F(x) = 1 + 1/x. Here E = 1 + 1 /(1 + 1/(1+ 1/ …)) is the formal eigenform, but there is a real number x such that x = 1 + 1/x and we can take x = (1 + sqrt(5))/2. Furthermore,

the finite iterations 1, F(1), F(F(!)), … are 1, 1+ 1/1 = 2/1, 1 + 1/(1 + 1/1) = 3/2, 1 + 1/(1 + 1/(1 + 1/1)) = 5/3, … and these have (1 + sqrt(5))/2 as their limit. So in this case the formal eigenform can be identified with an element of the original domain D.

2. D = R, the real numbers. F(x) = -1/x. Now there is no real number x such that x= -1/x. And the formal eigenform E = -1/-1/-1/-1/-1/-1/… does not correspond to any element of R, but it can be matched up with the complex number i (in the domain of complex number that extend R) with i^2 = -1. In this way the complex number i can be interpreted in terms of an “oscillating” formal number that is an eigenform.

3. Let F(x) = <x> where this means “put brackets around x”. Then E = <<<<<…>>>>>. This is a quintessential formal eigenform.

4. Let F(x) = “I am the one who says x.”. Here F(x) is a sentence and for example F(red) = “I am the one who says red.” This may be true or false about me. But F(I) = “I am the one who says I.”. That is true and could be regarded as a definition of “I”. So in this sense "F(I) = I.” This example has to do with truth.

5. Let F(x) = This sentence has x words. Then F(5) is true and we regard F(5) not as equal to 5 but as correctly referring to itself and so true.

6. More generally, I shall say that a statement P is a “propositional eigenform” if it refers to itself, true or not. For example.

This statement is false.

This statement is fifty words long.

This statement is your cerebral cortex.

This statement is the last thing you will read before enlightenment.

This statement is written in Russian on a spaceship headed to interstellar space.

This statement is Gogol’s nose.

This statement is self-referential.

7. Of the propositional eigenforms in 6. only the last one is true by my reckoning. But now lets see. 

Let P be any statement about some state of affairs that could be either true of false.

Consider the following statement:

S(P) = This statement is true if and only if P is true.

Then S(P) is a propositional eigenform and S(P) is true exactly when statement P is true!

We have shown that propositional truth can be matched with the existence of a true propositional eigenform.

Best,

Lou

On Nov 7, 2019, at 3:17 AM, Jason the Goodman <jasonth...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Lou, would you define your "special kind" here - how specific it has to be?  And, what kind of eigenform is not "a truth" for a dog/cat or for a robot? Could you please show me. 

Best - Jason 

On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 4:03 PM Louis H Kauffman <kauf...@uic.edu> wrote:

Dear Jason,

Eigenform is important way to formalize a kind of stability.

Truth is a special kind of eigenform, not just any eigenform.

Truth means the truth of a PROPOSITION about something.

So we need to have a language involved and the notion that the propositions are talking about some domain where it is possible to check whether the proposition’s statement is correct.

Best,

Lou

On Nov 7, 2019, at 2:59 AM, Jason the Goodman <jasonth...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Lou,

How about defining "truth" with "stability" of the coupling loop between "the object" and the cognitive system coupling with the "object"?

If the process stabilizes and an eigenvalue of the loop emerges, we say "a truth" is found. 

This would refocus our attention from the "object" itself to the nature of the cognitive system, which may include animals and robots in addition to humans. My tentative way to upgrade from first-order thinking to the second-order thinking. Then, instead of searching for "truth", we search for the "Lyapunov potential function" for the situation if we could find one...

What do you think?

Best - Jason 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/05878EAC-EBDE-4F80-AC1C-7C1575C9F24C%40uic.edu.

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 16
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/11/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-16/

Re: Peirce List : Tom Gollier
At: https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2019-11/msg00004.html

Staying focused on a set objective has never been
my strong point so let me emblazon the following
emblem by way of keeping my eyes on the prize.

| For the moment I'm focused on cybernetics, systems, and experimental

| sciences and this is where the pragmatic conception of truth fits
| what we naturally do in those sciences remarkably well.

I've been planning to dig up a few choice texts to illustrate
the links among cybernetic, pragmatic, and scientific thinking
in general, but most of my books are still packed in boxes from
our move last year, so maybe that'll remind me to keep digging.

Right now though I've got to go shovel some snow ...

Regards,

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 17
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/13/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-17/

I meant to write more last time but got waylaid by an onslaught of weather and progress on this topic is likely to be
glacial for now. But I have been mulling over Tom Gollier's comments all the while and the best I can do so far by way
of getting our minds on the same page is simply to assemble our words on this one.

JA:
<QUOTE>
There are many conceptions of truth -- linguistic, model-theoretic, proof-theoretic -- for the moment I'm focused on

cybernetics, systems, and experimental sciences and this is where the pragmatic conception of truth fits what we
naturally do in those sciences remarkably well.

The main thing in those activities is the relationship among symbol systems, the world, and our actions, whether in
thought, among ourselves, or between ourselves and the world.

So the notion of truth we want here is predicated on three dimensions: the patch of the world we are dealing with in a
given application, the systems of signs we are using to describe that domain, and the transformations of signs we find
of good service in bearing information about that piece of the world.

</QUOTE>

TG:
<QUOTE>
First, assuming that "symbol systems" are more or less consistent and complete a priori structures of Thirdness and "the
world" is existential Secondness, the question of "truth" seems to be just what "actions" will bridge the abyss between
them. "Thought" alone doesn't, but thought "among ourselves" (the a priori method) might have a shot at it. Scientific
experimentation seems to be pretty good at it, but ...

Secondly, assuming those systems of Thirdness are finite while the world of Secondness is both interconnected and
infinite, any claim to truth must be made in the face of leaving something, a lot, out of it.
</QUOTE>

There is much about "the relationship among symbol systems, the world, and our actions, whether in thought, among
ourselves, or between ourselves and the world" to mull over here. (Suddenly I have a craving for cider ...)

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 18
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/14/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-18/

We do not live in axiom systems. We do not live encased in languages,
formal or natural. There is no reason to think we will ever have exact
and exhaustive theories of what's out there, and the truth, as we know,
is "out there". Peirce understood there are more truths in mathematics
than are dreamt of in logic and Gödel's realism should have put the last
nail in the coffin of logicism, but some ways of thinking just never get
a clue.

This brings us to the question:

* What are formalisms and all their embodiments in brains and computers good for?

For that I'll turn to cybernetics ...

Regards,

Jon

[Andrei Cretu]

Trying to develop on Jason's initial thought - if "everything said is said by an observer" then the notion of a "statement" and consequently the truth of a statement should perhaps be defined relative to the observer?

E.g. for an observer with input space A (all states of perception) and output space B (all methods of observation/interaction with the environment) the world will appear as a (generally fuzzy and variable) relation, say g, from AxB into A.

A statement wrt this observer can be defined in the most general terms as a triple s= {α, β, α'} where:

-  α is an equivalence class on A under some equivalence relation (an input macrostate, i.e. some more or less stringent constraint on initial conditions),

-  β an equivalence class on B (an output macrostate, i.e. a more or less granular definition of a method of observation/interaction), and

-  α' again an equivalence class on A (a more or less granular specification of the result of the observation/interaction method under the given circumstances).

Then s is "true" wrt the observer if g is such that for any a ∈ α, b ∈ β, g(a,b) ∈ α'. In other words s must accurately predict the result of some operation on the environment/self in terms of the perception of, and methods of observation and interaction available to the observer.

Of course, since g is generally not directly available to the observer and needs to be constructed "enactively", piece by piece, determining truth values under all but the most stringent assumptions can be a very tricky business in this setting. On the other hand, translating between observers is relatively easy - it amounts to defining structure-preserving mappings between the respective spaces.

The reason why I find this definition tempting is that it is purely system-theoretic and  independent on linguistic assumptions; I am not sure of its usefulness, though. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

 

Best,

Andrei

 

 

Gesendet: Sonntag, 10. November 2019 um 11:10 Uhr
Von: "Louis H Kauffman" <kauf...@uic.edu>
An: "Jason the Goodman" <jasonth...@gmail.com>
Cc: cyb...@googlegroups.com, "Stuart Umpleby" <ump...@gmail.com>
Betreff: Re: [CYBCOM] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/93AE2594-790E-4CC3-B8A2-11AC22C56F72%40uic.edu.

[Louis H Kauffman]

Dear Folks,

I would like to reiterate my previous email. (Repeated below)

I said: 

Let P be a proposition.

Consider the following statement:

S(P) = This statement is true if and only if P is true.

Then S(P) is a propositional eigenform and S(P) is true exactly when statement P is true!

We have shown that propositional truth can be matched with the existence of a true propositional eigenform.

The point of this language was to show that any ordinary propositional truth can be seen as the truth of a propositional eigenform,  the truth of a self-referential statement.

This is a formal way of pointing out that truth is always directly related to the formation of an eigenform for an observer, in the context of the interlock of that observer and his or her most basic eigenforms of 

self and world. There is no objective truth. Truth is always relative to an observer and a context. 

In creating E = F(F(F(F(…)))) I have created the truth that E = F(E) in the rarefied context of abstract eigenform. From that truth, I can continue the process of design to see how this truth is related to the more well known (to me) truths in the world I had before creating E.

This way of creating worlds by declaration and process is dangerous when practiced by Habitual Liars, as we all know and as we have known since the beginning of human thought and action.

It is also necessary for civilized life. It is the stuff of law and contract and indeed religion and art and literature.

Once Sherlock Holmes had been created as an eigenform by Conan Doyle, he had existed since the beginning of time.

Best,

Lou

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Dear Jason,

Given a mapping F:D —> D where D is any mathematical domain (e.g. an arbitrary set), an eigenform is a fixed point of F, possibly in some larger domain D’, extending D. In this way, every F has a corresponding eigenform E with F(E) = E. The way this is proved is to construct E = F(F(F(F…))), the infinite concatenation of F upon itself. Sometimes this formal eigenform is related to the original domain D and sometimes it absconds (or transcends) well beyond that domain. There are many examples. I will give a few for reference.

1. D = R, the real numbers. F(x) = 1 + 1/x. Here E = 1 + 1 /(1 + 1/(1+ 1/ …)) is the formal eigenform, but there is a real number x such that x = 1 + 1/x and we can take x = (1 + sqrt(5))/2. Furthermore,

the finite iterations 1, F(1), F(F(!)), … are 1, 1+ 1/1 = 2/1, 1 + 1/(1 + 1/1) = 3/2, 1 + 1/(1 + 1/(1 + 1/1)) = 5/3, … and these have (1 + sqrt(5))/2 as their limit. So in this case the formal eigenform can be identified with an element of the original domain D.

2. D = R, the real numbers. F(x) = -1/x. Now there is no real number x such that x= -1/x. And the formal eigenform E = -1/-1/-1/-1/-1/-1/… does not correspond to any element of R, but it can be matched up with the complex number i (in the domain of complex number that extend R) with i^2 = -1. In this way the complex number i can be interpreted in terms of an “oscillating” formal number that is an eigenform.

3. Let F(x) = <x> where this means “put brackets around x”. Then E = <<<<<…>>>>>. This is a quintessential formal eigenform.

4. Let F(x) = “I am the one who says x.”. Here F(x) is a sentence and for example F(red) = “I am the one who says red.” This may be true or false about me. But F(I) = “I am the one who says I.”. That is true and could be regarded as a definition of “I”. So in this sense "F(I) = I.” This example has to do with truth.

5. Let F(x) = This sentence has x words. Then F(5) is true and we regard F(5) not as equal to 5 but as correctly referring to itself and so true.

6. More generally, I shall say that a statement P is a “propositional eigenform” if it refers to itself, true or not. For example.

This statement is false.

This statement is fifty words long.

This statement is your cerebral cortex.

This statement is the last thing you will read before enlightenment.

This statement is written in Russian on a spaceship headed to interstellar space.

This statement is Gogol’s nose.

This statement is self-referential.

7. Of the propositional eigenforms in 6. only the last one is true by my reckoning. But now lets see. 

Let P be any statement about some state of affairs that could be either true of false.

Consider the following statement:

S(P) = This statement is true if and only if P is true.

Then S(P) is a propositional eigenform and S(P) is true exactly when statement P is true!

We have shown that propositional truth can be matched with the existence of a true propositional eigenform.

Best,

Lou

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/trinity-54d73a2e-7acc-4d31-90d1-e6413b69cec7-1573894641368%403c-app-gmx-bs28.

[Jason the Goodman]

Dear Cybfolks,

So far may we agree that the answer to the initial question of Stephen Paul King (in Nov. 6) for this thread is a stable "no"? Truth only belongs to a specific observer or a specific P-individual in Paskian term. This is nothing new though. 

My attempt of "defining "truth" with "stability" of the coupling loop between "the object" and the cognitive system coupling with the "object"", a question I raised to Lou, was meant to shift our attention from the ontological "truth" to the operational/functional "stability" first about the starting situation when one observer facing one "Something-Out-There," (SOT), if the coupling stabilizes, i.e. reached to an eigenform, the "truth" is on the stage. But that's not new neither. What we need to discuss is, in our human society, most cases are with multiple observers/P-individuals, thus "something-out-there" is still that SOT, but we have multiple observers here, and what Lou call "Habitual Liars" might be included. Boom, we have a wicked problem.

The immediate case would be Hong Kong today, right now, a once beautiful city is turning into a war zone, with fires, shootings, killings, murders, and tortures, as we're typing and chatting.  The event-chain started in early June there is one SOT, but there are three to four P-individuals: Beijing, HK Government, Protestors(PRN) & Protestors(BAV). Now each holds their own "truth" stably, but together the situation is highly unstable.

My perspective leads to a search for a possible stabilizer to solve/resolve/dissolve the current violent and chaos situation. There is no use to debate who is right and who is wrong - people of the world with the universal value already knew it. The urgent challenge here is, how can we (I mean our self-perceived know-it-all Cybfolks) help to save more HK kids from being killed? 

Thoughts?

Best - Jason

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/D88BC34C-31D9-43E1-A639-CB73E887E4ED%40uic.edu.

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 19
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/12/14/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-19/

All,

Going over the last few month's posts about signs, systems, and
theories of truth I see many unanswered questions deserving of
further attention. Seasonal diversions being what they are
my mind will be elsewhere the rest of the year so I've put
together a list of topics for future work.

(Too many links to post here -- please see the above blog post for the list.)

[Louis Kauffman]

Dear Folks,

Some clarification of the use of eigenform and eigenbehaviour may help.

Lets go back to the use of True (T) and False (F). We are aware that to have a domain in which one can without ambiguity  label statements or descriptions as T or F requires more than most linguistic domains can tolerate. And yet there are restricted domains (such as classical mathematics) where it does work out. When the observer is coupled with his or her “objects”, then T and F have to be examined with care. If an eigenbehaviour stabilizes into an eigenform that can be described in a time-independent way, then this description can be deemed T and the truth value can be utilized without the actions of the observer significantly changing the situation. In all other situations, actions have to be taken with an understanding that they will and can change the properties of the “objects” of those actions. (These objects are the eigenforms or eigenbehaviours affected by the actions).

We are conditioned by our upbringing to keep thinking that all we have to do is to look for what is True and what is False. But in situations like Hong Kong or the Middle East or American Politics it is not the right level to immediately look for T and F. We have to look at the processes, and as Jason says, the emergence of P-individuals who each have their own stabilizations of description of an ongoing process. In affairs like Hong Kong or the Middle East there is a common ground (the literal ground where people live and function) that can be indicated, and it is possible to begin to negotiate from common understandings of that common ground if the parties can be separated from their eigen-constructions of deeply held P-realities. This requires politics, persuasion and wisdom that may or may not come forth.

The same can be said for American Politics but the situation is worse in some ways than the former two examples, because the common ground is of course the physical ground, but what is being disputed is the action of coming to values T and F, with one group taking a classical stance in the grounding of law and constitution and the traditional view of “facts” (what is the case), while the other is taking flight in (to this observer) a distorted notion of radical constructivism that produces volatile and evanescent but locally politically useful eigenforms (the alternative facts). The traditional side does not even have language for what the “constructive/destructive” side is doing. The constructive side has been honing its language and methods for many years and rests in an equally long historical tradtion.

In reading the quote from Gary Kasparov below,  note that each concept, each noun-form, each apparent object is an eigenform. The disparity between “what we were being told” and “the world around us” is a disparity between eigenforms leading to new eigenprocesses and eventually to new eigenforms. Russian irony makes local eigenstates in the language itself. Contradictions, seen as contradictions, can lead to change. Contadictions denied lead to the muffling of their power.

Best,

Lou

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/04/opinions/kasparov-trump-america-post-truth-world/index.html

"The totalitarian Soviet Union where I grew up tried to dominate the truth, to distort it and control it. Reality was whatever the Party put out on the nightly news, or in the official newspapers, Pravda, which means "Truth" and Izvestia, which means "News.”

It was increasingly obvious back then, even to communist true believers, that what we were being told didn't match the world we saw around us. As the joke went, "there is no news in the truth and no truth in the news.” 

                                    в известиях нет правды и в правды нет известиях.  

Eventually the disparity between truth and lies became too great; life wasn't improving and more and more information was making it through the Iron Curtain. Denying reality became too grave an insult to our dignity, an underestimated ingredient in the spirit of revolution.” (Gary Kasparov)

 в известиях нет правды и в izvestiyakh net pravdy 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BSRckvf_BroT1%2BuB3_T9HLVHWE6XHJN1jT2ZW2F6%3DBL%3Dzwz2g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Harnden]

Your paragraph below, Lou, I find particular salient in understanding our contemporary UK and US politics (maybe this is more general - I am not sure).

Indeed, in closely following the turbulent happenings since Boris Johnson became PM three months ago, and in the charge towards the recent general electron, I have time and time again  wondered why the ‘good guys’ (for me) could never address the constructionist stance of the’ bad guys’  (to me). The good guys have been struggling and squirming with a language and vocabulary that is stumbling around with ways of reaching for truths and facts , when the bad guys have simply jettisoned such options for an immediate advantage. And they indeed gain such an advantage.

I don’t think I’m implying any values here, though it would be interesting to unearth why the one side of the current arguments concerning ‘democracy’ have sop readily and happily adopted a constructivist stance, while the other has totally failed to do so. Maybe part of that question would be whether an explicit constructivist stance does undermine liberal rationalism………….and, I suppose, the answer is ‘Yes, it does’.

Roger

[Jason the Goodman]

Hi Roger,

I have not followed up current politics close, so please elaborate more on this - which side is the/your good guys and which is the/your bad guys and which is applying constructivism and which is not... and why. This must be a very interesting phenomenon not for the content itself but for the general dynamics of how and why these are happening under our noses... Let's say if we assume that I'm an alien coming from a different planet, can you introduce to me what's going on in the politics of the U.S. and the U.K.... Best regards - Jason

-----------------------------

Jason Jixuan Hu, Ph.D.

Independent Research Scholar & Discussant

Club of REMY:  www.clubofremy.com 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/C9F98C33-4E89-42DA-9919-56903B1F3662%40rogerharnden.com.

[Roger Harnden]

Sorry, Jason,

I was making a load of assummations.

My ‘bad guys’ includes politicians who deliberately blind common sense with ambiguities and contradictions (such as Trump and Boris Johnson), and manipulate an electorate for their own ends.

Actually my ‘good guys’ is a bit more problematic, now I’m thinking about it……..as to a degree it includes all politicians once they have entered the arena of politics. So I should perhaps strike ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’. ……re[placing it with something like - one side of the contemporary political debate strives to adhere to truth and facts; while the other loosely adopts a constructivist stance.

My puzzlement is not about why one should adopt a constructivist stance; but, rather, why another class of persons finds it so uncomfortable to do so. My starting assumption, is that the constructivist approach and assumptions is most attuned to our daily living (at least, in the careful way Lou enunciates it).

Roger

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BSRckv1tgV04teLQE%3DWbHMbEH%2Bm6%2B-K%2B02-_BhTd8E7q9d0MA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jason the Goodman]

Roger, thanks!

Let's keep finding the details... (I don't have a TV so I'm glad that you could play my planet earth tour-guide.)

So you're saying that Trump etc are bad guys but the good guys are more problematic... then which side is more constructivist in your observation?

How do they establish "truth", "fact", "alternate truth" and "their own versions of fact"? 

I am amazed by one fact that I observed, that so many people want an elected president to drop dead now one way or another, but still so many people willing to defend him, protect and pray for him. Why? What's going on?

Remember the old story about the six blind-men and the elephant. The situation is now we have in the U.S. 300 million blind-men-women-whatever, I'm amazed that so many of them wanted to tear this elephant apart - with taxpayer's money and public resources. 

I'm confused by these strange things on your planet - please try to explain more.

Best - Jason  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/1621880A-C789-494F-93B0-C0730B79614C%40rogerharnden.com.

[Louis H Kauffman]

Dear Roger,

What you describe is what I call a ‘distorted constructive stance”. The distorted stance is to take as given that we can state and create any reality, and use our power to invoke it.

Just “get used to it” as Mulvaney said in his press conference. “This is how we operate."

Irrespective of the rights of others. It is obvious why “dictators” have always been and always will be distorted constructivists. The other side of the coin is that one can take a moral stance and one can take a stance for reason and democracy. It makes sense to create these and it is our choice to create these and we must create these and this is also constructivism. Constructivism is not an answer. It is an insight into what we are about. One can still speak of The Truth with the understanding that it refers to the preferred eigenform in the moral democratic stance that would have as full a harmony with all contexts (with all P-observers) as it possibly can. In the same way, we have the truth in mathematics by an agreement about what is logical what is not logical. The consensus continues to evolve, but an agreement, a very wide agreement, is possible. The fact that it is possible indicates more than just the statement that our worlds are created worlds.

Best,

Lou

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/04/opinions/kasparov-trump-america-post-truth-world/index.html

"The totalitarian Soviet Union where I grew up tried to dominate the truth, to distort it and control it. Reality was whatever the Party put out on the nightly news, or in the official newspapers, Pravda, which means "Truth" and Izvestia, which means "News.”

It was increasingly obvious back then, even to communist true believers, that what we were being told didn't match the world we saw around us. As the joke went, "there is no news in the truth and no truth in the news.” 

                                    в известиях нет правды и в правды нет известиях.  

Eventually the disparity between truth and lies became too great; life wasn't improving and more and more information was making it through the Iron Curtain. Denying reality became too grave an insult to our dignity, an underestimated ingredient in the spirit of revolution.” (Gary Kasparov)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/C9F98C33-4E89-42DA-9919-56903B1F3662%40rogerharnden.com.

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi,

  It is as if Weyl's version of a phase shift separates the two sides, they are polarized and each sees the other as "bad guys"... Is a view orthogonal to both possible? Maybe not...

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/430EAEC1-16F9-491F-AE0E-A33EE4054490%40uic.edu.

[Louis H Kauffman]

Dear Stephen,

It should be noted that for all too many participants everything turns, not on personal convictions or actual “points of view”, but on political expediency.

And in the electorate much turns on the repeated and memorized phrases that have been embedded in their long term memories by talk radio and Fox news.

There is no education in USA for thinking or critical thinking and those who design language for the electorate are clever enough to string slogans and denials and complaints into an irreducible 

tapestry that will not admit reason as an option (even for the participants in the design of the language). The same phenomenon happens in any group with jargon, including cyberneticians.

Best,

Lou

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BRcsSiaoYxRiVuvuQMn1s8_n%3DvRyEBgFDKuNxkf5oqxA%3D_LHg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jason the Goodman]

Dear Lou, would you elaborate your point using this as an example?  https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/letter-president-donald-j-trump-speaker-house-representatives/?utm_source=ods&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1600d

Thanks - Jason

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/DD5AC1AB-F3A8-4F48-9486-5EAE3EBC53FE%40uic.edu.

[Jon Awbrey]

Jason, Lou, All ...

I don't think there's anything new under the sun here ...

<QUOTE>
Again, in a ship, if a man were at liberty to do what he chose, but
were devoid of mind and excellence in navigation (αρετης κυβερνητικης),
do you perceive what must happen to him and his fellow sailors?

-- Plato : Alcibiades, 135A
</QUOTE>

Cf: Theory and Therapy of Representations : 1
At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/13/theory-and-therapy-of-representations-%e2%80%a2-1/

Or, to translate it into contemporary terms:

"The 25th Amendment, Use It or Lose It!"

Regards,

Jon

On 12/18/2019 7:43 AM, Jason the Goodman wrote:> Dear Lou, would you elaborate your point using this as an example?

[Stephen Paul King]

I agree, Lou. It is as if each group has its own private Reality. An interesting version of Many Worlds.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/DD5AC1AB-F3A8-4F48-9486-5EAE3EBC53FE%40uic.edu.

[Louis H Kauffman]

Dear Jason,

Of course the letter is just a collection of lies and exaggerations. 

In this discussion we have to back up and point out that a lie is what is given the value F by the D-individuals. 

The R-individuals will not give it that value. 

But I am not quite so antiseptic as that. 

The eigenforms in the letter are being constructed right in front of you by statements like 

"The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence."

"your invalid impeachment"

"you are declaring open war on American Democracy”

"You are the ones interfering in America’s elections.  You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy.  You are the ones Obstructing Justice.  You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.”

"All of this was motivated by personal political calculation.  

Your Speakership and your party are held hostage by your most deranged and radical representatives of the far left.”

"If you truly cared about freedom and liberty for our Nation, then you would be devoting your vast investigative resources to exposing the full truth concerning the FBI’s horrifying abuses of power before, during, and after the 2016 election—including the use of spies against my campaign, the submission of false evidence to a FISA court, and the concealment of exculpatory evidence in order to frame the innocent. "

What is stated to be so, becomes so for the R-individual who is the listener or reader of the speech. Many believe and find the speech resonant with their way of feeling. R-individuals who are politicians understand the mechanics of promoting and prolonging these eigenforms to their advantage, and have no compunction about using them. For these R-individuals it is not a matter of belief, but just the use of the 

phrases that is paramount. In the level of the creation of such eigenform through language there is power in repetition and power in taking on the voicing of these creations. They are evanesent in that they have no formal basis nor any basis in anything except the language itself.

But it is important that the language has apparent reference to an apparently shared external reality. The R-individuals who subscribe to these devilish creations also believe that they have a common eigenspace that is the “republic” from their point of view.

"Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment—against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle—is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America’s Constitutional order.  Our Founders feared the tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.”

This one is of great interest because it appeals to and creates an imaginary body of truth, fact, evidence and legal principle in the favor of Mr. T. He, the being of the imaginary truth value T can create an “object” that stands for the truth of his stance and then use it as evidence in his favor.

"More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.”

I like this one very much as it has historical and emotional appeal. It will get repeated many times

and so become more and more True for Mr. T and his R-individuals.

"your false display of solemnity”

Here “false” is used in a moral sense and it is a nice short phrase, easy to remember and repeat.

Let us not forget that the essence of creating an eigenform is just repetition. F is false but E = F(F(F(F(…)))) and F(E) = E so a truth 

(this invariance of E, the emergence of E as an object in “the world”) emerges from the False in the imaginary domain that is taken to be Real.

" impeachment fantasy “

And this says it all. By creating the final eigenform that denies the reality of the “very real” impeachment, the impeachment is relegated to 

a fantasy world and, with it, the entire collection of D-indivuals as well.

Best,

Lou

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BSRcktrBa3Rjiooaewy3w9YWOZOV9_ypqnhiNLASO9cZQS-QA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Roger Harnden]

Jason,

I skipped over your post in my response to Lou.

In that, and now, I am trying to work out what it is that I am attempting to say!

My starting point is that I find Radical Constructivism (RD) (as some expound it ) very convincing. I find Lou’s descriptions very powerful and valid. The issue is when we move away from ’strong constructivism’ to RD (as I understand bot Ernst Von Glasersfeld and lou, this follows Maturana’s invitation to place objectivity in parenthesis). 

What I was pondering was why it is that the opposition (to both Trump and Johnson) finds it impossible to aggressively adopt the radical constructivist stance of their opponents [Of course, in all this, it is a given that none of the actors have ever heard of RD]. I have seen this close-up in the recent UK dialogues about Brexit and the recent General Election, but I caught glimpses in the last US Election. And, Jason, I am wondering whether this has to do with what Johnson and Trump both refer to as ’the establishment’. After all, it is not simply that this imaginary body holds power, but that it respects certain rules and conventions, And - so the argument goes (and I tend to agree with this point) - this establishment actually cheat. They play subtly to misdirect their opponents and do anything possible that can be supposedly defended by rationality and logic. And this is what infuriates the Trumps and Johnsons of this world (and many others). They see it as deceitful, hypocritical and cheating. And all in order to protect their own privileges (as we see with Hillary and others). 

And, my point, Jason, is that I think there is an element of ’truth’ in this case AGAINST the neo-liberal elite. But, more important, I feel that advocates of a more humane and liberal approach to human affairs (which I support) have to find a way to escape the straitjacket they have hoist about themselves and their arguments.

Didn’t mean to be so long-winded. Anyway, I think the above is where I was going.

Roger

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BSRcksD%3DSvko%3DsBwSyYcw3LTXz3dOf5PZK1oOB3e%3D6xSSe19w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Louis H Kauffman]

Dear Roger,

All politicians manipulate the world views that they support.

But it is not that "this is what infuriates the Trumps and Johnsons of this world (and many others). They see it as deceitful, hypocritical and cheating.”

You have it backwards. Mr T is not the least infuriated by anything. He is an AGENT in a directed effort to create the reality that he and his supporters want, independent of any respect for “the facts”.

I am sorry in this discussion to have to use the abbreviation “the facts”, but it is NOT the tenet of Radical Constructivism that you can simply create the world by declaring it to be this way or that way.

This is the method of dictators and requires raw power of persuasion. I would rather jettison the entire cybernetic and construcivist philosophy than use it to condone the behaviors of dictators or would-be dictators.

Best,

Lou

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/8B9F55ED-38F1-42A8-BBCD-B692C7344D00%40rogerharnden.com.

[Stephen Paul King]

Nice illustration of the Flagg resolution!

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/B7EA2951-1DAC-4389-92D3-DAF72456EAC6%40uic.edu.

[Jon Awbrey]

All,

One of my favorite epigrams is this line from Herodotus --

* τὰ δὲ μοι παθήματα ἐόντα ἀχάριτα μαθήματα γέγονε.

See:
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/03/24/%cf%84%e1%bd%b0-%ce%b4%e1%bd%b2-%ce%bc%ce%bf%ce%b9-%cf%80%ce%b1%ce%b8%e1%bd%b5%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%b1-%ce%bc%ce%b1%ce%b8%e1%bd%b5%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%b1-%ce%b3%e1%bd%b3%ce%b3%ce%bf%ce%bd%ce%b5/?fbclid=IwAR3hpCtUml1A-qm7UZ4kdX9IBzKxBw6otuMXeraCnJPbnflITJN3-g2LxM0

* My sufferings, though painful, have been my lessons.

So in mulling over the Brexit plebiscite I consoled myself with the thought that the Brits would eventually learn from
the sufferings surely to come.

But then my mind rejoined with this meme --

* Never underestimate a People’s capacity to blame others for self-inflicted wounds.

And I realized they probably wouldn't learn anything at all.

Of course, they're not the only ones ...

[Louis H Kauffman]

Dear Stephen,

I agree that what I wrote is an illustration of Flagg Resolution.

And it points out the practicality of not rejecting paradoxical or multiple truth valued statements, but rather treating them as they are — available for their value to come forth in some given context.

In this case there is the D-context and the R-context, diametrically opposed to one another, each with its own way to use the statements. But as I say, I am not so antiseptic as all that.

I want to call a spade a spade. And these statements are devil’s spawn and we know it. 

Best,

Lou

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BRcsSh5YrM7SOFSTFg0g3ce8PN4kJGxBqfrNfUTqcgAiRst7g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Louis H Kauffman]

A Question: What is the procedure for joining CYBCOM?

[Stephen Paul King]

Hi Lou,

  Indeed. Meanwhile, I was pointed at this paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.08874  It mirrors most of the ideas that I have been thinking about.

A mosaic of Chu spaces and Channel Theory with applications to Object Identification and Mereological Complexity

Chris Fields, James F. Glazebrook

(Submitted on 23 Mar 2018)

Chu Spaces and Channel Theory are well established areas of investigation in the general context of category theory. We review a range of examples and applications of these methods in logic and computer science, including Formal Concept Analysis, distributed systems and ontology development. We then employ these methods to describe human object perception, beginning with the construction of uncategorized object files and proceeding through categorization, individual object identification and the tracking of object identity through time. We investigate the relationship between abstraction and mereological categorization, particularly as these affect object identity tracking. This we accomplish in terms of information flow that is semantically structured in terms of local logics, while at the same time this framework also provides an inferential mechanism towards identification and perception. We show how a mereotopology naturally emerges from the representation of classifications by simplicial complexes, and briefly explore the emergence of geometric relations and interactions between objects.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/DD7FDCA5-07DC-4C41-A1BD-F8904C0929AB%40uic.edu.

[Jason the Goodman]

Dear Lou,

I'm having difficulty in observing the current deep split in the Capitol, which is rooted in the deeper split of the population we call Americans. It would to too unprofessional or unscientific to simply pointing the finger and name one lier or a whole party as liers or half of the American as liers. What's the role of our constructivist knowledge play here? 

Don't remember if it was Wittgenstein, pointed out the difference between the truth and the truthfulness, and the falsity and the untruthfulness (lie). I think it is important that we distinguish processes happening at the cognitive level (truth or falsity) from at the moral level. AT the cognitive level we do have methodologies such as falsification or statistics to approve/disapprove a statement and decide true/false, but at the moral level, I see too many people making judgments too soon and sometimes unfairly. The question Wittgenstein asked HVF "do you know how right you are" can be extended also to the moral level - do we know how right we are in this impeachment drama, that extremely surprising to me, considering my experience from a truly totalitarian society.

My puzzle also arises from some of the discussions among out groups here - I have been trying to figure out the facts (at my cognitive level) but I frequently receive opinions, sometimes very strong opinions, moral judgments or even curses, etc., from the emotional half of the brains of our colleagues, but my quest to the facts is still pending unresolved.  How come?

Please let me know what you think. Thanks - Jason

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/B7EA2951-1DAC-4389-92D3-DAF72456EAC6%40uic.edu.

[Louis H Kauffman]

Dear Jason,

My opinion remains: The R-persons for about 35 years have been honing their propaganda for reasons of power.

This amounts to using well known methods of repetition and (unsupported) statement to make evanescent, but politically expedient eigenforms that will be accepted “as if real”.

An earlier eigenform you might think about is the assertion of “weapons of mass destruction” that took us into the Iraq war.

The R-persons can achieve this because the general population (and even the D-persons, alas)  know nothing of cybernetics or general semantics or even simple notions of feedback and control.

Mr. T is a useful pawn in their game. I repeat. He is a pawn not a king. Removing him will not change the game.

Best,

Lou

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BSRcktegLMz5xvj3qxNmL1SUHR-s%2BAC_Z_4D7MbnWsbTOkmAw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jason the Goodman]

Roger, I apologize for the late reply. As you can see from my question to Lou and his answer, my puzzle - to a large extent sharing with yours - is still there. Being a cybernetician I pay attention to how do we correct our previous assumptions/beliefs, and I noted interestingly that there are two fundamentally different brain-states(beliefs) that respond to criticisms/corrections differently. One type is when you're being corrected you'll be appreciated and change immediately. Another type is that when you are, well, not corrected yet but just questioned, you become angry, reluctant, or even furious. My guess is that these two types of beliefs might be holding within different regions of our brains - such as the arena of rationality/pragmatic valuing functions and the arena of emotion/social connection/identity functions? My previous question was how do we distinguish truth from truthfulness and falsity from the lie (i.e. intentionally twist a known fact by oneself with a purpose of misleading others.) That is, we need to distinguish the issue at the cognitive level from the issue at the moral/ethical level. I think the D-individuals vs. R-individuals and Trump/Johnson vs. the Establishment are 95% of cognitive issues, explainable with our constructivist knowledge, while perhaps 5% of issues are at the moral/ethical level.

The field of psychology has well documented human perceptual conflicts or discrepancies, see "the Invisible Gorilla", or the popular movies such as Rashomon, “L'année dernière à Marienbad”，“Gaslighting" as examples. I call these works "constructivist samplers without jargon" and recommend them to people who are interested. But strangely the politicians and the voters are too busy to consider these phenomena as "reasonable" but engage themselves in mutual finger-pointing too quickly, each side assumes their moral-superiority so automatically, so quickly, so sure. This is my biggest puzzle. 

Please let me know what you think. Thanks - Jason

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/8B9F55ED-38F1-42A8-BBCD-B692C7344D00%40rogerharnden.com.

[Roger Harnden]

Jason, my view on these matters, and where I possibly differ from many others, is that my background is one from history of science and so-called radical philosophy (notably Michel Foucault). From that profoundly cynmicalnperspective (cynical but to my mind, accurate)

 ALL dhuman discourse (including formal languages, such as logic and math) are constrained by the same relativist drift. Of course, there are various degrees and sybtelties by which one can disguise this universal relativism (such as eigenform and so on), but from myperspective these are simply means to convince oneself one can go beyond human limits (incidentally, Lou does this magfnificently, and sort-of almoist gets there (especially in that he insists he is not attempting the transcendental)).

My understanding from this stance (I mean, my own( is that all discourse is a degree of ‘dancing on a needle tip’. But the critical and crucai trajectory of something to do with improvement or betterment (once more, where Lou scores immensely high for  me), is the extent to which a discourse invites or encourages recurrence of coordinations of interactions (Maturana) or not. This latter dynamic hbas of course to take place upon the grounds.foundations of diversity - co-existence of difference. So a truth function would consisgt of a trajectory towrds maintaintance or increase of differences without conflict…..or some such thing.

The Trumps of this world appear to want something like - power to the powerful.

But, sadly, my view would appear to have l;ittle to do with truth or fact.

Don’t know whether the is at all relevant to your query, Jason. And I have no desire to distract from the thrust of this thread.

Roger

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BSRcktuY2TEu%2BMo3b122VRjZNC4%3Dj%3DbGTBwq%3Dfrgs1HR%3DOk%3DA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jason the Goodman]

Roger, yes your thoughts are relevant. In fact, I have been trying to reflect on this thing called "Political Correctness" and its damage to our society. I tend to name it "Abuse of Value", similar to Abuse of Power. Public power is needed for public goods but any abuse of it leads to disasters. Similarly, human values especially the universal ones are needed for health societies but abuse of them leads to disasters as well. This is like, foods are good for our health, but abuse of food brings us diseases, simple. The trend of "political correctness" believed and advocated by a big number of intellectuals, and amplified by politicians, are actually splitting our societies. 

In that account, I invite you to reflect on the thoughts produced by people like Foucault, and those having a heavy influence on him - Hyppolite, Marx, and Hegel. I'm not saying that this line of thinkers were all bad guys, but I would like to examine how much good they actually did for the human society versus how much damage they had caused. It is time to do some accounting for the actual results these thinkers brought to us.

I visited Marx's museum in the old house of his family, and I wrote an article "Where Did Marx Get Wrong" in Chinese. If we have a group interested in this topic I shall find time to translate it into English. 

Regards - Jason

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/455B224E-BDFF-446B-A3CC-90F96D568A26%40rogerharnden.com.

[Roger Harnden]

Well, hang on a second, Jason. The reason why I posted as I posted is that one might just as readily place constructivism alongside all the post-modern stuff. Indeed, that was precisely what attracted me to second order cybernetics and RD in the first place (especially the way Lou teases coherence out of the conceptual base).

For myself this ‘cybernetic’ tradition gave a degree of optimism where my experience after immersing myself in Foucault for a couple of years was extreme pessimism!.

But I discovered on mixing with individual in this ’scientific’ tradition (as distinct from philosophical and social science), that these individuals absented themselves from any sort of responsible critique of the way things are in the social and geo-political world.

And I am still not sure why that is.

Roger

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BSRcktLdi81kG6eN3gDGg9_%2BzEyZQqT0d9cEhHmEM_Fbsmt7w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jason the Goodman]

Roger, "what you are not sure why"  they "absented themselves from any sort of responsible critique of the way things are", might have two layers of answers, I'm guessing. 

The first layer, influenced by the mentioned line of thinkers, they say, well, we just prefer to construct our reality in this way. Thus, D-individuals and R-individuals.  And then, T-individuals emerge, angering D-individuals and confusing R-individuals. Each holding their own reality. Each saying "I-Am-Right-You-Are-Wrong," expanded to "I-Am-Noble-You-Are-Motherfxxker."

But I pay more attention to the second layer, which is a hypothesis. They are most likely, either having done very little entrepreneur work, i.e. they live from school to school and make their living by getting a paycheck from their school till retirement, or, having their fortune made too easy and too accidental, such as a few super-rich D-individuals. Either way, they had no experience of how hard the normal entrepreneur life is. They got their cake too easily. Think about the case of Karl Marx, in all his life he ate other people's cake, he himself never tried to make his own cake. 

Then, this natural tendency of "Abuse of Value" leads them to focus on how to cut and distribute the cake (made by others), not how to make the cake.  Self-importance leads to their arrogance or arrogance covered by multiculturism or post-modernism, and self-righteous leads to their illusion that they reside on a moral height thus qualifying them to point fingers. 

That's how they absent themselves from any sort of responsible critique of the way things are"... IMHO.

Thoughts? 

Regards - Jason  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/9C96E292-65C7-4514-88AA-3D939F214F11%40rogerharnden.com.

[Jeremy Gross]

I'm finding this two-layer approach confusing.

The first layer seems to be a superficial look at the way the two dominant political parties exert their dominance in the USA. It does not appear to generalize to conditions elsewhere in the world that might have a parliamentary system, an autocracy, or other forms of political life.

The second layer just seems like a particular kind of political propaganda that proliferates in the USA on the right wing, that also poorly translates into other contexts in other parts of the world. The analysis of the lives of scientists given in this layer is a grotesque cartoon version of real life, skewed to make a particular political point that veers outside of what might be considered a consensus of epistemological assumptions that those on this forum might all agree to.

The dichotomy between scientist and entrepreneur seems like a false dichotomy, and the description of the life of the professional academic does not match my own life in academia, nor does it describe most of my colleagues.

In the 21st century, the word entrepreneur has been stretched to cover everyone from an Uber driver to the CEO of Theranos or WeWork. In my little town, there's a guy with a pickup truck who does odd jobs, and calls himself an entrepreneur. The MIT Media Lab cranks out a ton of ideas, most of which are not marketable, and yet it is considered an entrepreneurial think tank. Most of the academics I know do consulting work alongside their academic work, and much of this consulting work could be considered entrepreneurial. In the 21st century, the scientist is a well-defined role in society, but the entrepreneur is not, so this dichotomy rings false.

There is a fair amount of sloppy class analysis in the second layer, which makes the inclusion of Karl Marx all the more astonishing. His cake-eating practices seem like a peculiar inclusion to this description. Whatever Marx was, he was a social scientist who always struggled for funding for his research, and yet went on to revolutionize political economics, sociology, historiography, philosophy, and the politics of many different countries. The volume of work he produced, alone and collaborating with Engels, hardly seems like idleness. One might suggest that Capital was the cake he tried to make.

I'm not sure that self-importance is a rigorous concept that can be defined, as you use it in this description. Why is the self-importance of a scientist more noxious than the self-importance of an entrepreneur? Aren't we all self-important scientists in this forum, by your definition?

Stafford Beer, in Brain of the Firm, coins the information-theoretical concept of negative information. In this concept, the word negative is not a value judgement, but is being used the way that negative integers are negative. Beer worried that some forms of information are so divergent from truth that it takes an influx of new information to get to zero information; that is, it takes work to start with negative information and arrive at no information at all.

Here, on my ninth paragraph, I have not contributed anything to this conversation except to attempt to fix the negative information of the previous post.

How frustrating.

Jeremy.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BSRckssuwPui8r%3DStfiZB4KKpG-G%2BG_9CrPpd-9U9DRSzPEQw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jason the Goodman]

Congratulations, because confusing and frustration are good signs, for perhaps your hidden opportunity of learning if you're brave enough to step out of your comfort zone, or your box that labeled "I-Am-Right-You-Are-Wrong". BTW it is the title of an old old book by Edward De Bono. Check it out. 

Re my use of term "entrepreneurship", I meant the difference/distinction between a life of getting a regular paycheck from an establishment - a school, a government agency, or even a consulting client, and a life in which you have to bear all the stresses to issue that kind of paycheck to your employees.  In some cases you have to borrow all the possible cash by pushing the credit line to the upper limit of all of your credit cards, on a Friday afternoon, to make sure that all your people can get their paycheck by the end of that day. If you are lacking that kind of stressful experience, you have no clue about how the cake is created, and you will be too eager to focus on cutting other people's cake.  

In the case of Karl Marx, I suggest you do a data-checking on all of his financial histories, how did he live on what kinds of money from whom and where, then, hopefully, you will find out that if "Das Kapital" is really the Bible full of truth (for the thieves) or just three volumes of complete nonsense. Perhaps a good holiday exercises?

Jason

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/4b489525-56d1-4a1d-a035-9a4a52ab7b61%40www.fastmail.com.

[Roger Harnden]

Well I thin your cautionary comments are important, Jeremy.n I get the feeling that both myself and Jason are types who are tempted to wabder off the path of rigour and follow their own instincts too closely - after all, surely the whole point of human reason is to allow this animal (homo sapiens) to break out of pure instinct and merge with some wider consensuality.

My own frustration, Jeremoy, is a personal one aimed at myself (rather than at others). I am quite cllear, for instance, that it is not up to Lou to wave flag from the battlemments - his path is to push his own vision to its furthest limits, keep pushing and keep testing. An as I said earlier, I think he does this with great aplomb and integrity. I felt the same with Gordon Pask, who I got to know a little. 

But my original comment was more an expression of my own failure over the years, to have made a more pragmatic and effective critique myself, incorporating what I felt to be the strengths of approaches such as Lou (and others) into my own critique. It is me who is chaffing at the bit, after all, not them.

And lurking behind my frustration, has been the nasty suspicion that these approaches can indeed be emptied out and inverted into a kind-of perversion of integrity - which is what I sense so-called populism does.

My own’instinct’ is that there is an answer within Lou’s way of describing things - something tied jup with the cycling and return of the other into the effect. ……..as distinct from the Trumpian exlusion of the other from the effect…………somewhere along those lines.

Anyway, maybe this is all distraction and  not pertinent in this community.

Roger

[Louis H Kauffman]

Dear Roger,

It is not trivial that Mr. T has told thousands of lies and that he indulges in attempts to use other countries to influence US elections and so on.

That I would accuse someone of lies when Truth itself is suspect requires discussion. I will treat that below. Lets just assume that lies are not a good thing for now.

Then is Mr T “just doing radical constructivsim”? Lets use a little common sense here. Anybody who decided to do whatever they want could be construed as acting out constructivism.

But not with any intelligence. So there must be something wrong with identifying RC with doing whatever you please. I will let you think about that.

Then there is the matter of Truth. Truth is a relative matter, but that does not eliminate it. The Declaration of Independence says “We take these truths to be self-evident …”.

Well. If you did not think through and see if you hold those truths, that would be irresponsible of you as a citizen. Those truths are only true for you if you take them to heart. And if you dispute them , then it is your right to engage in debate. It is not your right (if you were given the power) to throw them out just on the basis of your power. RC is about responsibility, not irresponsibility.

Best,

Lou

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/1CA06FC3-2B80-4D69-8903-0E130B38392F%40rogerharnden.com.

[Stephen Paul King]

Is it possible that beliefs can propagate almost completely contrary to facts, seen by those that are not infected with those beliefs?

Can we have complex waves in the domains of binary truth tables?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/A2057D1B-5FCF-42C4-BCBD-6177B98D0D9A%40uic.edu.

[Louis H Kauffman]

Dear Stephen,

Yes indeed, beliefs can propagate almost completely contrary to facts, even when the facts could be agreed upon by all parties. Facts can be interpreted differently by different folks.

You suggest a dynamics of beliefs. That is interesting and I think we could and indeed have made models of parts of this. For example we say that L = ~L , the liar statement that asserts its own falsehood is accompanied by the oscillating dynamic …TFTFTFTF…. We can extend this to many sorts of dynamics. To model the spread of beliefs we would surely find that they behaved and would be modeled by the analogues of diffusion equations in statistical mechanics. Politicians, priests and the media are all players in the dynamics of belief. So are scientists. You believe that the earth goes around the sun, quite contrary to the ‘fact’ that you ‘see’ the sun rise and fall every day. (This last stinger leads into the necessary discussion of the question "What is a fact and how do you know it?”.)

Best,

Lou

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CA%2BRcsSivOOB7eLv13jU4VJKmU-SCjO-FXrkuH4AcMEgtTzEZMw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jon Awbrey]

Stephen, All ...

Patterns of change in multi-dimensional boolean spaces
is what Differential Logic is all about. I will write
more when I get time, but here's first reading for now:

Differential Propositional Calculus
http://web.archive.org/web/20190805122400/https://oeis.org/wiki/Differential_Propositional_Calculus

NB. I had to use an archive link for the time being as the
article is in the process of being split into several parts.

Regards,

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 20
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/01/05/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-20/

Re: Cybernetic Communications ( https://groups.google.com/d/topic/cybcom/YPeQiVJtpik/overview )
::: Louis Kauffman ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/cybcom/YPeQiVJtpik/pRYsoNA7CwAJ )
Re: FB | Charles S. Peirce Society ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/ )
::: John Corcoran ( https://www.facebook.com/groups/peircesociety/permalink/1813265515476099/ )

Lou, Stephen, All ...

Various conceptions of belief in relation to pragmatic theories of inquiry, signs, and truth
have come up recently in several discussion groups. Some of the variations are too far off
my present track but if I stay the pragmatic course I'd naturally recommend the novel fork
taken by Peirce's 1877 paper, "The Fixation of Belief".

Reference
=========

Charles S. Peirce, "The Fixation of Belief",
Popular Science Monthly 12 (November 1877), pp. 1-15
( http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/fixation/fx-frame.htm )

[Krippendorff, Klaus]

I have refrained from this discussion of truth as I have other things to think about but I found the attached paper by Pearce about the fixation of beliefs pretty convincing especially the distinction of the sources of the fixation: authority, logical consistency, habit or tenacity to which I would add social acceptability.
What I found missing are methods of overcoming these fixations. Doubt is in
My way of thinking not sufficient.
I am interested in issues of liberation from oppressions

Klaus

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 5, 2020, at 2:30 PM, Jon Awbrey <jaw...@att.net> wrote:
>
> Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 20

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/fb36864c-6693-c5d8-e352-4d2e442c9617%40att.net.

[Louis H Kauffman]

Thank you Klaus.
One of the things that we forgot to mention in this discussion is that some eigenforms (tatsache) are certainly constructed, but their results are irreversible and their consequences are quite unpredictable.
Remember that W wrote the Tractatus in the trenches of WWI.
Very best,
Lou

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/C16F07EB-1DCE-45DE-88AC-03ED3A421CBD%40asc.upenn.edu.

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 21
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/01/06/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-21/

Thanks, Klaus, I appreciate the way you immediately extracted
one of the overarching themes of Peirce's whole paper, indeed
of his whole work. That allows us to tread lightly past a lot
of verbal nit-picking about the differences among traditional
concepts like belief, fact, knowledge, opinion, etc. and get
right down to the more systems-theoretic ideas about states of
information and inquiry as a process that revises those states.

Here's a bit I wrote a few years back rubricizing Peirce's four ways of
moving from doubt to belief -- from a state of information so unsettled
it puzzles the will to one secure enough on which to act, should the need
for action arise.

* Tenacity, Authority, Plausibility, Inquiry
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/01/15/tenacity-authority-plausibility-inquiry/

My favorite polymathematician, Charles Sanders Peirce, gave a fourfold classification
of what he called "methods of fixing belief", or "settling opinion", most notably and
seminally in his paper, "The Fixation of Belief" (1877). Adjusting his nomenclature
very slightly, if only for the sake of preserving a mnemonic rhyme scheme, we may
refer to his four types as Tenacity, Authority, Plausibility (?? priori pleasing
praiseworthiness), and full-fledged Scientific Inquiry.

Reference
=========

* Peirce, C.S. (1877), "The Fixation of Belief", Popular Science Monthly 12, 1???15.
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/fixation/fx-frame.htm

Resource
========

* Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
https://oeis.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Theory_Of_Truth

Regards,

Jon

On 1/5/2020 3:59 PM, Krippendorff, Klaus wrote:
> I have refrained from this discussion of truth as I have
> other things > to think about but I found the attached paper

> by Peirce about the fixation of beliefs pretty convincing

> especially the distinction of the sources of the fixation:
> authority, logical consistency, habit or tenacity to which
> I would add social acceptability.
>
> What I found missing are methods of overcoming these fixations.
> Doubt is in My way of thinking not sufficient.
>

> I am interested in issues of liberation from oppressions.
>
> Klaus
>

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth : 22
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/03/09/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-22/

Re: Systems Science ( https://groups.google.com/d/topic/syssciwg/H673ep6U_Ug/overview )
::: Scott Jackson ( https://groups.google.com/d/msg/syssciwg/H673ep6U_Ug/lQJ7Yr5DHQAJ )

All,

Discussions of "thinking and flawed decisions" arising in the Systems Science Working Group naturally brought the topic
of Pragmatic Truth and all its bedeviled vicissitudes back to this Peircean's mind.

I have often observed how belief systems act in a way like immune systems, generating "antibodies" to combat the
"antigens" of any ideas beyond their comfort zones.

Elsewhere, I described these phenomena under the heading of Information Resistance
( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/06/10/information-resistance-%e2%80%a2-%cf%89/ )

* "The hardest thing to understand about information is people's resistance to it."

The locus pragmaticus for the study of belief systems
and the impact of information and inquiry on them is
C.S. Peirce's "The Fixation of Belief". See the
preceding post in this series for comment and links:
( https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/01/06/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-21/ )

Reference
=========

* Peirce, C.S. (1877), "The Fixation of Belief", Popular Science Monthly 12, 1–15.
( https://arisbe.sitehost.iu.edu/menu/library/bycsp/fixation/fx-frame.htm ),

Resource
========

* Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

( https://oeis.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Theory_Of_Truth )

Regards,

Jon

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey

facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

[Jon Awbrey]

Cf: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth • 23
At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/08/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-23/

A recurring issue has come up again ...
time only to pass along a few links ...
more later, if I get a chance ...

Re: Richard J. Lipton ( https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/about-me/ )
::: The Truth ( https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2020/06/04/the-truth/ )

Just a random forkful of thoughts from a pragmatic peircepective ...

• Pragmatic Theory Of Truth
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/03/11/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-1/

Re: Cristopher Moore ( http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~moore/ )
::: Platonism and Pluralism ( https://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2020/06/04/the-truth/#comment-110590 )

The “irritation of doubt”, a state of uncertainty or surprise, marks the beginning of inquiry according to pragmatic
thinkers like Peirce and Dewey, so it's critical to acknowledge and value such states when they occur.

According to John Dewey, it is because of the human quest for perfect certainty that philosophy has inherited three
problematic viewpoints:

<QUOTE>

the first, that certainty, security, can be found only in the fixed and unchanging;

the second, that knowledge is the only road to that which is intrinsically stable and certain;

the third, that practical activity is an inferior sort of thing, necessary simply because of man’s animal nature and the
necessity for winning subsistence from the environment.

</QUOTE> — John Dewey • The Quest for Certainty

See Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry
At: https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

Resources
=========

• Truth Theory ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Truth_theory )

• Pragmatic Theory Of Truth ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Pragmatic_Theory_Of_Truth )

• Correspondence Theory Of Truth ( https://oeis.org/wiki/Correspondence_Theory_Of_Truth )

[Jon Awbrey]

Dear Edwina,

I think I can get the drift of what you are saying. At least,
I can see there is something monadic about the Tenacity method
of fixing belief or settling on what to believe, perhaps even
in the sense of Leibnizian monads, windowless, hermeneutically
sealed spheres of belief. But monads would say they've got that
pre-established harmony thing working for them, so I'm not sure
how to categorize that. At first, the Authority method appears
to be dyadic, Freud would probably call it a transference effect,
but we know people pick their authority to fit what they already
believe, so perhaps appeals to authority reduce to a monadic or
monastic model, after all, at least to a first approximation.
As far as the À Priori Plausibility method goes, things appear
a little more complex at first because it involves a community.
Sure, people can pursue the “What Is Pleasing To Speculate“ game
in the privacy of their own minds, but something about that way
of trying to settle belief remains unsettled and naturally drives
the hermitary visionary to seek out and try to convert others to
the Big Idea. So, yes, the missing link to Scientific Inquiry is
found in that Dialogue Involving Nature, that endeavor to commune
not only with other minds but with that ever-insistent-persistent
reality constantly thumping us in the head until we pay attention.

Regards,

Jon

On 6/8/2020 11:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Jon
>
> I'd say that a monadic or dyadic truth would usually be found in
> an authoritarian or tenacity or a priori of 'fixation of belief'.
> The triadic is the scientific mode.
>
> And above all, I think that pragmatics acknowledges Secondness; that
> there are 'real objects' out there, independent of our beliefs and
> experience of them. That is, it's against nominalism and conceptualism.
> And, it acknowledges Thirdness; that our knowledge base of this reality
> is capable, at least in the more complex organisms, of evolution and
> adaptation of its content.
>
> Edwina