tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.comments2020-04-05T08:42:21.513-07:00Diagrammatic ThinkingTomGhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16146088152890068896noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-10379370480467913252016-04-11T14:51:06.096-07:002016-04-11T14:51:06.096-07:00Very interesting post Tom! But it strikes me that ...Very interesting post Tom! But it strikes me that we should move on from those late Modernist dinosaurs and embrace the truly post-Modernist thought of CSP. Let one famous male identity vanquish the other on the cliff - or both fall off - it really doesn't matter vis a vis the end of inquiryCathy Legghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00625538743530837085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-66761904301655779532016-01-29T12:19:30.968-08:002016-01-29T12:19:30.968-08:00Hello Tom,
As I research Shay's Rebellion, I ...Hello Tom,<br /><br />As I research Shay's Rebellion, I want to let you know that I appreciate your taking of the photos. May I direct you to this image on this blog showing a building with the saying in question Obedience to Law is Liberty. I do not know the building or where it is located. <br /><br />http://strongarmor.blogspot.com/2013/09/talk-obedience-to-law-is-liberty.html<br /><br />I think your post is an excellent example of mission drift of organizations and how group think can shift. <br /><br />thanks<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-76517243804991490372014-04-05T07:48:34.193-07:002014-04-05T07:48:34.193-07:00Marcuse writing on Lewis Mumford:
"Lewis Mum...Marcuse writing on Lewis Mumford:<br /><br />"Lewis Mumford has characterized man in the machine age as an "objective personality," one who has learned to transfer all subjective spontaneity to the machinery which he serves, to subordinate his life to the "matter-of-factness" of a world in which the machine is the factor and he the factum. [Marcuse, ""Some Social Implications of Modern Technology"]TomGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16146088152890068896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-6186136928920132572012-10-09T13:56:23.181-07:002012-10-09T13:56:23.181-07:00That's a parenthetical rendition of Peirce'...That's a parenthetical rendition of Peirce's Alpha Graphs.<br /><br />A => B graphs as (A (B)), "Not A without B".<br /><br />A => ~B graphs as (A ((B))).<br /><br />Removing the double negation, we get (A B),<br />which can be read as "Not both A and B",<br />or "A and B are mutually exclusive".<br /><br />Venn diagrams are informative here.<br /><br />Jon Awbreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13378153853941137426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-5034850481924930392012-10-09T07:30:07.877-07:002012-10-09T07:30:07.877-07:00Jon,
Good to hear from you. I'm not sure of y...Jon,<br /><br />Good to hear from you. I'm not sure of your symbolism. Are you saying that for the implication, if X then Y, the non-implication is, X and not-Y? I do think that's a possibility, and I'll try to respond in more length of Peirce-L.<br /><br />TomTomGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16146088152890068896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-91524273133910469162012-10-08T12:06:07.920-07:002012-10-08T12:06:07.920-07:00I think he means "implies not", in other...I think he means "implies not", in other words, "excludes".<br /><br />Graphically speaking:<br /><br />(A ((B))) = (A B)<br /><br />This is what makes sense in terms of adding information to a term in order to make it more precise, which is the sense of "implication" that Peirce uses when he equates it with "information".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-13497324596583124162012-06-12T08:09:36.082-07:002012-06-12T08:09:36.082-07:00I like your take on "try to be happy" be...I like your take on "try to be happy" being deadpan. The voice of God; or what the voice of a god should be.<br /><br />I'm just not sure I like the stagedness of Shrigley's photographs. The Getty Museum had an exhibit several years ago featuring Lee Miller and other surreal photographers. The way they were staging their photographs seemed to vitiate what they were trying to say until Miller herself got into WWII. Then, her surreal photographs were no longer staged, the war itself juxtaposed things in strange ways, and they took on a vitality, for me, the others lacked.TomGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16146088152890068896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-44859045996040579752012-06-10T22:47:24.047-07:002012-06-10T22:47:24.047-07:00I totally agree that certain things — here, images...I totally agree that certain things — here, images — more proactively or aggressively belie ready sense. I am attracted to such things. <br /><br />There is a sense in which the coconut is even more complex to me precisely because it's so deadpan, precisely because it's almost nothing. Hence rather that winding back upon itself, albeit without ever getting there — as the dog image might be said to do — the coconut image amplifies banality, opening up an even stranger trope of amplification — one, were I a better informed rhetor, I'd know the name for. <br /><br />Foucault at one point compares two performative sentences:<br />"I am lying" and "I am writing." The former is a performative contradiction that is premised on a logic that exceeds the sentence — a formal logic of which the sentence is an example. <br /><br />The latter, however, is even stranger as the constative and the performative or in perfect sync: I am doing and saying the same thing at the same time! Language, then, is no longer an example of the real, of an external logic, but is the very site of the world coming into being.<br /><br />As for ambiguity, multivalence is a condition of life, not just art. If art is not to be cliche — that is, dead — it must be multivalent. And that forges ambiguity.Daniel Coffeenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03912050391869734890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-31043446435945681952012-06-10T08:33:33.084-07:002012-06-10T08:33:33.084-07:00Daniel, thanks for your comments.
I think we'...Daniel, thanks for your comments. <br /><br />I think we're coming back to Cezanne being able to paint just 2 good apples in his lifetime. There's only one way I've found, so far, to make "good sense" of the coconut photograph. And, I haven't found any way to do that with the dog. I can sense something there metaphorically, but all attempts to make it explicit fall short, leave things out, fail to cohere, etc. In that vein, I don't think the "stuffed dog" interpretation really measures up either. It would require too many Ptolemaic additions, as you seem to note, in order to keep it working.<br /><br />Also, it's interesting that you zeroed in on the "try to be happy" on the coconut. As I thought about that post yesterday, I kept coming back to Jonathon Raban's in "Summer with Empsen" and the need for ambiguity in art. Why should art have to be ambiguous? Is it just vanity? Or is it a requirement to include the ever-present duplicity that makes us the "rational" animals we are? It does seem a bit at odds with making "good sense" of these things.TomGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16146088152890068896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-36902272441031845582012-06-09T20:08:19.083-07:002012-06-09T20:08:19.083-07:00Ah, I think I see what you're saying: you'...Ah, I think I see what you're saying: you're putting "explicit" diagrams on one side, metaphor on another. <br /><br />And then there are certain things — Shrigley's dog image — that belie any attempt to explicitly diagram it. <br /><br />But I'm confused: Why can't I diagram the dog image — assume it's a stuffed dog with a sign in its hand, presumably put there by someone? Sure, there are complexities to this sense — which I could still diagram, even if not explicit. (Although this diagram would be a flow chart of a sort with forks and circles and such.)<br /><br />And then there's the coconut: isn't it odd that a coconut is dispensing wisdom? How is this more diagram-ready than the dead dog?<br /><br />I suppose I'm saying: isn't a diagram a metaphor and a metaphor a diagram?<br /><br />Or am I missing something here. Which is a very likely possibility.Daniel Coffeenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03912050391869734890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-33037674353468769012012-05-27T19:22:36.600-07:002012-05-27T19:22:36.600-07:00I liked "String Theory" too, having a gr...I liked "String Theory" too, having a grand-daughter who plays. Haven't looked at 'Infinite Jest' yet, but a lot his essays are available online.TomGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16146088152890068896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-91796272001222978142012-05-27T18:57:24.974-07:002012-05-27T18:57:24.974-07:00Love David Foster Wallace! Good to see you've ...Love David Foster Wallace! Good to see you've discovered him too, Tom. Having said that, I could not get through 'Infinite Jest'. Too druggy for me. But I *adored* the book of essays which starts with the long one on tennis...Cathy Legghttp://waikato.academia.edu/CathyLeggnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-1946817679803837412012-05-08T16:05:06.808-07:002012-05-08T16:05:06.808-07:00This new political dimension to the diagrammatic i...This new political dimension to the diagrammatic issue you are exploring, Tom, is fascinatingCathy Legghttp://waikato.academia.edu/CathyLeggnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-69418931012467060662012-04-23T07:36:42.681-07:002012-04-23T07:36:42.681-07:00Cathy,
I wonder if you're referring to:
&quo...Cathy,<br /><br />I wonder if you're referring to:<br /><br />"The reality of things consists in their persistent forcing themselves upon our recognition. If a thing has no such persistence, it is a mere dream. Reality, then, is persistence, is regularity." [CP 1.175]<br /><br />"Persistence" and "regularity" are what a diagram/fiction has, whereas a dream does not. This also reminds me of Nietzsche:<br /><br />“This world of pure fiction is greatly inferior to the world of dreams, so far as the latter mirrors reality, and the former falsifies, devalues, and negates reality.” [The Antichrist]<br /><br />Meanwhile, though, I need an example of a simple, day-to-day diagram like a map developing cracks in it.<br /><br />Thanks for your comment,<br />TomTomGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16146088152890068896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-81651967545554292882012-04-22T22:06:59.492-07:002012-04-22T22:06:59.492-07:00Peirce says somewhere that an icon does not repres...Peirce says somewhere that an icon does not represent generals or particulars but 'a pure dream'. Likewise I would say it does not represent reality or fictionality. A pure dream is not 'unreal' it is 'a-real' - if that makes any sense at all. <br /><br />How do 'cracks appear' in the diagram, unless we are considering more than just the diagram?Cathy Legghttp://waikato.academia.edu/CathyLeggnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-45512641441435908362012-03-24T01:53:11.846-07:002012-03-24T01:53:11.846-07:00Nice analysis, Tom! As an employee of the Universi...Nice analysis, Tom! As an employee of the University system I am concerned by the dominance of increasingly hegemonic 'diagrams' there - where as I understand it part of the point of the institution in the old days was to inspect the diagrams of others and put them together into a 'bigger picture'Cathy Legghttp://waikato.academia.edu/CathyLeggnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8311036859226751336.post-32924942845783338242012-03-19T08:49:54.694-07:002012-03-19T08:49:54.694-07:00I wonder if this is Soros' excuse for not cont...I wonder if this is Soros' excuse for not contributing (thus far) to the Obama effort this time around. I think Peirce would have found some way to argue for the relevance of social sciences. He was certainly aware of the forces of greed.Stephen C. Rosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07769778698884528600noreply@blogger.com