Great diagram of reality coming into the brain through tree-like tessellation of hierarchies.
I like the semiotics of Peirce based on phenomenology 1stness, 2ndness and 3rdness which is something like impression, recognition and relatedness for how the incoming sense data gets processed into knowledge and even wisdom.
And Korzybski had the Structural Differential for that. (I think it was some kind of manifold like how position, movement and acceleration are a derivative of its prior.
The General Semantics people did some fine clear writing.They had a journal ETC about trying to get free from always thinking the map was the territory and be mindful that a thing was changing under our categories.
They had non-Aristotelian logic where they tried to banish the copula of being "is" from discourse.
Michael, with Peirce and Korzybski, you're introducing me to people and worlds about which I know nothing. I looked at wikipedia and other sources, which of course, led me into yet more areas, and these fields are so detailed that I have barely grasped the outlines. I do, of course, see their connection to what I am writing. Thank you for the introduction.
It illustrates a tension that has existed in my thinking: do I make my own way with as little reference to others as possible to avoid my explorations from merely following the paths that others have trod, or do I avail myself of the work that others have done, because otherwise I will only reach the foothills of the mountains they have already scaled?
Great diagram of reality coming into the brain through tree-like tessellation of hierarchies.
I like the semiotics of Peirce based on phenomenology 1stness, 2ndness and 3rdness which is something like impression, recognition and relatedness for how the incoming sense data gets processed into knowledge and even wisdom.
And Korzybski had the Structural Differential for that. (I think it was some kind of manifold like how position, movement and acceleration are a derivative of its prior.
The General Semantics people did some fine clear writing.They had a journal ETC about trying to get free from always thinking the map was the territory and be mindful that a thing was changing under our categories.
They had non-Aristotelian logic where they tried to banish the copula of being "is" from discourse.
It is really inspiring to see what you are doing.
Michael, with Peirce and Korzybski, you're introducing me to people and worlds about which I know nothing. I looked at wikipedia and other sources, which of course, led me into yet more areas, and these fields are so detailed that I have barely grasped the outlines. I do, of course, see their connection to what I am writing. Thank you for the introduction.
It illustrates a tension that has existed in my thinking: do I make my own way with as little reference to others as possible to avoid my explorations from merely following the paths that others have trod, or do I avail myself of the work that others have done, because otherwise I will only reach the foothills of the mountains they have already scaled?