[Fis] Informatic Principles (redux) – reply to Pedro

Marcus Abundis 55mrcs at gmail.com
Wed Sep 16 08:36:04 CEST 2020


Sadly, Peirce never details Laws of Nature (1), he merely uses the notion
as a trope to support his also-imprecise 'synechism' – so I can hardly
re-reinterpret 'that which does not even exist'. Nor does Bateson detail
his own notions of 'a pattern that connects the cosmos' and a 'necessary
unity', kin to Peirce's synechism. And neither does Korzybski specify
multiple 'levels of abstraction' that would also tie to Peirce's synechism.
THIS imprecision seems to be the habit . . . so I think most informed and
thoughtful readers would see this as an area still needing to be addressed.

> . . . done putting together into the same sac fermions, genes, . . . <
What thoughtful person puts these things in the 'same sac' when they point
to different 'levels' in a simple-to-complex cosmos. This comment, ignoring
an obvious simple-to-complex cosmos, seems more about 'baiting an argument'
rather than engaging in and encouraging critical thought.

>origins of meaning in the "animate" are automatically lost,<
I hope you understand simply repeating 'Life as the origin of meaning' as a
mantra here on FIS does not make it true in other realms. This assumption
seems to remain largely unexamined in FIS, such unexamined assumptions
being unsuited to/discouraging deeper exploration. Life itself remains
*formally* undefined. Further, Life plainly relies on 'meaning-less'(?)
inanimate factors noted in the Standard Model of particle physics and the
periodic table. What happens to Life if 'inanimate' electrons suddenly lost
their charge? Or if proteins become denatured by inanimate means? There is
no meaning in this? One has to wonder what you actually mean by 'meaning'
if your claim vis-a-vis Life as meaning is to persist. Leaving this
assumption unexamined makes further exchanges on the matter a fool's errand.

> . . . assume a pan-pysicalist-pan-psychist stance . . .<
I have no idea what you mean by this, but again it seems like another
baiting comment, more about dismissing the offered view without actual
critical thought. Or perhaps you are pointing to Force and Energy as
'inanimate' all-pervading (pan-) primitive factors, each exhibiting a
certain logic(s), at various and diverse levels? But I cannot say/see what
you actually mean here as your comment seems vague.

I am sorry to say simply 'baiting arguments' does not reach a level of
discourse that I see as meriting a 'prize'. I will post on FIS further
Informatic Principles only if it seems some closure is possible on prior
points – as my position proceeds in a step-wise manner, as with a
simple-to-complex cosmos. Still, for those who are curious, more detail is
available in the current DRAFT of a paper, which I regularly update/refine,
found here:

1) Sfendoni-Mentzou, Demetra. “Peirce on Continuity and Laws of Nature.”
Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, vol. 33, no. 3, 1997, pp.
646–678. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40320633. Accessed 15 Sept. 2020.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20200916/47f1d0f4/attachment.html>

More information about the Fis mailing list