Pitching the Tent at LOTH
What practical steps can I take to help Ladies of the Heart establish itself on Facebook?
Read the rest of this entry »
Read the rest of this entry »
Graphics I Found (III.)
How do we depict an outer picture about what results from our untangling an inner representation?
[click thumbnails to enlarge] Source: Abduction and Affordance: A Semiotic View of Cognition; Donald J. Cunningham
comment: Bridges. Figures 2-5 in order of complexity, or, if you will, ‘bit order’. Soon, I’ll round out the quintet with Figure 1. (And circle back to the matrix, the 4-square, to Bateson.) One thing that comes up for me, is how much pressure the conventions of intellectual genre came under during 1980s–the Reagan era–and how this afforded what followed. This period came a little more than a generation after the renaissance of the new left and post-modernism and what I term ‘pragmatic syncretics’ (in the U.S.) So, after the stirrings of, for example, Kenneth Boulding (1956; The Image,) Herbert Marcuse (1964; One Dimensional Man,) Norman O. Brown (1967; Love’s Body,) Gilles Deleuze (1968; Difference & Repetition,) Gregory Bateson (1972; Steps to An Ecology of Mind.) Somehow the network now fits in, and the genre busting seems today much more to breath as it organizes and reconfigures, Although, I suppose one has to pay attention in some narrow or creative way.
Note to self-I have to dig up Maturana’s ideagram showing co-assimilation and take the scanner to The Geometry of Meaning, Arthur M. Young, 1976–the year I started reading philosophy while managing a record store in the back of a book store in Middlebury, Vermont.
 |  |
 |  |
[click thumbnails to enlarge] Source: Abduction and Affordance: A Semiotic View of Cognition; Donald J. Cunningham
comment: Bridges. Figures 2-5 in order of complexity, or, if you will, ‘bit order’. Soon, I’ll round out the quintet with Figure 1. (And circle back to the matrix, the 4-square, to Bateson.) One thing that comes up for me, is how much pressure the conventions of intellectual genre came under during 1980s–the Reagan era–and how this afforded what followed. This period came a little more than a generation after the renaissance of the new left and post-modernism and what I term ‘pragmatic syncretics’ (in the U.S.) So, after the stirrings of, for example, Kenneth Boulding (1956; The Image,) Herbert Marcuse (1964; One Dimensional Man,) Norman O. Brown (1967; Love’s Body,) Gilles Deleuze (1968; Difference & Repetition,) Gregory Bateson (1972; Steps to An Ecology of Mind.) Somehow the network now fits in, and the genre busting seems today much more to breath as it organizes and reconfigures, Although, I suppose one has to pay attention in some narrow or creative way.
Note to self-I have to dig up Maturana’s ideagram showing co-assimilation and take the scanner to The Geometry of Meaning, Arthur M. Young, 1976–the year I started reading philosophy while managing a record store in the back of a book store in Middlebury, Vermont.
Abduction and Affordance: A Semiotic View of Cognition (Cunningham) Abstract: The shortcomings of the dominant information processing models of cognition are outlined, and two alterative models derived from semiotics are presented. In addition, the possibility of incorporating J. J. Gibson’s ecological theory of affordance within the semiotic models is explored as a means of addressing some criticism of the latter models. The semiotic models addressed are J. Deely’s (1983, 1986) sensation-based Umwelt model and U. Eco’s (1976, 1979, 1984) Model Q. The criticism that semiotic models lead to solipsism is dealt with through Gibson’s rejection of perception as based solely on sensation. In his theory of visual perception, Gibson considers the environment to be the surfaces that separate substances from the medium in which animals live. But environments also”afford” things, such as shelter and locomotion. The processes of perceiving affordances and abduction, as described by Deely, allow semiotics to escape solipsism. Five figures are provided. (TJH)
