Jon Awbrey
unread,Aug 17, 2023, 5:40:37 PM8/17/23Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Sign in to report message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to Cybernetic Communications, Laws of Form, Structural Modeling, SysSciWG
Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 7
•
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2023/08/17/inquiry-into-inquiry-discussion-7/
All,
Dan Everett has prompted a number of discussions on Facebook recently
which touch on core issues in Peirce's thought — but threads ravel on
and fray so quickly in that medium one rarely gets a chance to fill out
the warp. Not exactly at random, here's a loose thread I think may be
worth the candle.
Re: Facebook • Daniel Everett
•
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=pfbid0be89MXhhCm8rxahRn4PXif6HHSCmkdiUFfMZ3qS1mNqSzRzUWfqej5a8cyz8TcyJl&id=100093271525294
My Comment —
Compositionality started out as a well-defined concept, arising
from the composition of mathematical functions, abstracted to the
composition of arrows and functors in category theory, and generalized
to the composition of binary, two-place, or dyadic relations. In terms
of linguistic complexity it's associated with properly context-free languages.
That all keeps compositionality on the dyadic side of the border in Peirce's
universe. More lately the term has been volatilized to encompass almost any
sort of information fusion, which is all well and good so long as folks make it
clear what they are talking about, for which use the term “information fusion”
would probably be sufficiently vague.
Regards,
Jon
cc:
https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
cc:
https://mathstodon.xyz/@Inquiry/110299510074465249