#semiotics — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #semiotics, aggregated by home.social.
-
Approaching Peirce
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/30/approaching-peirce/I gradually grow accustomed to the distinct possibility that there will always be different readings, and even divergent interpretations of Peirce’s writings. Some of that appears to be a two- or three-cultures issue — the readings that befit aesthetic, cultural, and literary aims often part ways with the readings that work best for logical, mathematical, and scientific ends. Partly that is due to the fact that applications to the humanities are soon over-whelmed with the vastly greater complexities of their theatres of operation, and so must be satisfied with very impressionistic and highly sketchy surveys of their realms.
It hasn’t always been that way with me, but most of the time these days I approach Peirce’s work from the standpoint of a practical mathematician focused on applications to empirical sciences, as luck would determine it, to the Odyssean no man’s land between qualitative and quantitative methods. That is far from how I started out, and there were many crises of mind and mood occasioned by the transits of my transdisciplinarity, but that is how it came to be at the present moment.
At any rate, what I find in Peirce are not antiques but tools toward the future.
#Anthem #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #Mathematics #Semiotics
#Science #CPSnow #TwoCultures #ThirdCulturalRhetoric -
Approaching Peirce
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/30/approaching-peirce/I gradually grow accustomed to the distinct possibility that there will always be different readings, and even divergent interpretations of Peirce’s writings. Some of that appears to be a two- or three-cultures issue — the readings that befit aesthetic, cultural, and literary aims often part ways with the readings that work best for logical, mathematical, and scientific ends. Partly that is due to the fact that applications to the humanities are soon over-whelmed with the vastly greater complexities of their theatres of operation, and so must be satisfied with very impressionistic and highly sketchy surveys of their realms.
It hasn’t always been that way with me, but most of the time these days I approach Peirce’s work from the standpoint of a practical mathematician focused on applications to empirical sciences, as luck would determine it, to the Odyssean no man’s land between qualitative and quantitative methods. That is far from how I started out, and there were many crises of mind and mood occasioned by the transits of my transdisciplinarity, but that is how it came to be at the present moment.
At any rate, what I find in Peirce are not antiques but tools toward the future.
#Anthem #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #Mathematics #Semiotics
#Science #CPSnow #TwoCultures #ThirdCulturalRhetoric -
Approaching Peirce
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/30/approaching-peirce/I gradually grow accustomed to the distinct possibility that there will always be different readings, and even divergent interpretations of Peirce’s writings. Some of that appears to be a two- or three-cultures issue — the readings that befit aesthetic, cultural, and literary aims often part ways with the readings that work best for logical, mathematical, and scientific ends. Partly that is due to the fact that applications to the humanities are soon over-whelmed with the vastly greater complexities of their theatres of operation, and so must be satisfied with very impressionistic and highly sketchy surveys of their realms.
It hasn’t always been that way with me, but most of the time these days I approach Peirce’s work from the standpoint of a practical mathematician focused on applications to empirical sciences, as luck would determine it, to the Odyssean no man’s land between qualitative and quantitative methods. That is far from how I started out, and there were many crises of mind and mood occasioned by the transits of my transdisciplinarity, but that is how it came to be at the present moment.
At any rate, what I find in Peirce are not antiques but tools toward the future.
#Anthem #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #Mathematics #Semiotics
#Science #CPSnow #TwoCultures #ThirdCulturalRhetoric -
Approaching Peirce
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/30/approaching-peirce/I gradually grow accustomed to the distinct possibility that there will always be different readings, and even divergent interpretations of Peirce’s writings. Some of that appears to be a two- or three-cultures issue — the readings that befit aesthetic, cultural, and literary aims often part ways with the readings that work best for logical, mathematical, and scientific ends. Partly that is due to the fact that applications to the humanities are soon over-whelmed with the vastly greater complexities of their theatres of operation, and so must be satisfied with very impressionistic and highly sketchy surveys of their realms.
It hasn’t always been that way with me, but most of the time these days I approach Peirce’s work from the standpoint of a practical mathematician focused on applications to empirical sciences, as luck would determine it, to the Odyssean no man’s land between qualitative and quantitative methods. That is far from how I started out, and there were many crises of mind and mood occasioned by the transits of my transdisciplinarity, but that is how it came to be at the present moment.
At any rate, what I find in Peirce are not antiques but tools toward the future.
#Anthem #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #Mathematics #Semiotics
#Science #CPSnow #TwoCultures #ThirdCulturalRhetoric -
Approaching Peirce
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/30/approaching-peirce/I gradually grow accustomed to the distinct possibility that there will always be different readings, and even divergent interpretations of Peirce’s writings. Some of that appears to be a two- or three-cultures issue — the readings that befit aesthetic, cultural, and literary aims often part ways with the readings that work best for logical, mathematical, and scientific ends. Partly that is due to the fact that applications to the humanities are soon over-whelmed with the vastly greater complexities of their theatres of operation, and so must be satisfied with very impressionistic and highly sketchy surveys of their realms.
It hasn’t always been that way with me, but most of the time these days I approach Peirce’s work from the standpoint of a practical mathematician focused on applications to empirical sciences, as luck would determine it, to the Odyssean no man’s land between qualitative and quantitative methods. That is far from how I started out, and there were many crises of mind and mood occasioned by the transits of my transdisciplinarity, but that is how it came to be at the present moment.
At any rate, what I find in Peirce are not antiques but tools toward the future.
#Anthem #Peirce #Inquiry #Logic #Mathematics #Semiotics
#Science #CPSnow #TwoCultures #ThirdCulturalRhetoric -
The 10 marriage-ending sentences you should never say to your partner. Even in the heat of an argument, these throwaway lines can do SO much damage, says TRACEY COX. Here’s what to try instead
We’ve all said things in the heat of an argument with our partner that we didn’t fully mean. Problem is, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle once it’s out there.
So many of the words couples think are throwaway lines do far more damage than we realise.
Studies show having contempt for your partner – continually attacking their character and belittling them – is one of the strongest predictors of divorce.
Those accusing comments aren’t just unkind, they’re deadly.
The next time you feel the urge to say one of these ten sentences, stop, take a breath, and try these alternatives.
Your relationship will thank you for it – and you might just get what you want.
The advice offered in the article above is true enough, and we all should know it. But it is also extremely shallow. Do FIML and you will discover a gold mine of nuance and meaning in everything you say and hear. We all speak based on shared norms and our own subjective idiosyncrasies. The stuff above is a species of shared norms. Your and your partner’s idiosyncratic material is thousands of time richer and more nuanced and more interesting. Only FIML will help you find it. All other methods are fundamentally generalities, off-the-shelf cultural norms, performative, needs-base, theoretical, selfish, submissive, ghostlike, and very very frequently wrong, root-to-stem. Only FIML can deal with this and fix it. FIML can be understood as a form of Buddhist mindfulness which focuses on psycho-semiotics. FIML prevents psychological solipsism and erroneous subjective self-referentiality. Even advanced Buddhist monks will benefit from FIML practice. ABN
#abn #analysis #BuddhistPractice #CommunicationErrors #FunctionalInterpersonalMetaLinguisticsFIML #psycholinguistics #psychology #semiotics -
The 10 marriage-ending sentences you should never say to your partner. Even in the heat of an argument, these throwaway lines can do SO much damage, says TRACEY COX. Here’s what to try instead
We’ve all said things in the heat of an argument with our partner that we didn’t fully mean. Problem is, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle once it’s out there.
So many of the words couples think are throwaway lines do far more damage than we realise.
Studies show having contempt for your partner – continually attacking their character and belittling them – is one of the strongest predictors of divorce.
Those accusing comments aren’t just unkind, they’re deadly.
The next time you feel the urge to say one of these ten sentences, stop, take a breath, and try these alternatives.
Your relationship will thank you for it – and you might just get what you want.
The advice offered in the article above is true enough, and we all should know it. But it is also extremely shallow. Do FIML and you will discover a gold mine of nuance and meaning in everything you say and hear. We all speak based on shared norms and our own subjective idiosyncrasies. The stuff above is a species of shared norms. Your and your partner’s idiosyncratic material is thousands of time richer and more nuanced and more interesting. Only FIML will help you find it. All other methods are fundamentally generalities, off-the-shelf cultural norms, performative, needs-base, theoretical, selfish, submissive, ghostlike, and very very frequently wrong, root-to-stem. Only FIML can deal with this and fix it. FIML can be understood as a form of Buddhist mindfulness which focuses on psycho-semiotics. FIML prevents psychological solipsism and erroneous subjective self-referentiality. Even advanced Buddhist monks will benefit from FIML practice. ABN
#abn #analysis #BuddhistPractice #CommunicationErrors #FunctionalInterpersonalMetaLinguisticsFIML #psycholinguistics #psychology #semiotics -
The 10 marriage-ending sentences you should never say to your partner. Even in the heat of an argument, these throwaway lines can do SO much damage, says TRACEY COX. Here’s what to try instead
We’ve all said things in the heat of an argument with our partner that we didn’t fully mean. Problem is, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle once it’s out there.
So many of the words couples think are throwaway lines do far more damage than we realise.
Studies show having contempt for your partner – continually attacking their character and belittling them – is one of the strongest predictors of divorce.
Those accusing comments aren’t just unkind, they’re deadly.
The next time you feel the urge to say one of these ten sentences, stop, take a breath, and try these alternatives.
Your relationship will thank you for it – and you might just get what you want.
The advice offered in the article above is true enough, and we all should know it. But it is also extremely shallow. Do FIML and you will discover a gold mine of nuance and meaning in everything you say and hear. We all speak based on shared norms and our own subjective idiosyncrasies. The stuff above is a species of shared norms. Your and your partner’s idiosyncratic material is thousands of times richer and more nuanced and more interesting. Only FIML will help you find it. All other methods are fundamentally generalities, off-the-shelf cultural norms, performative, needs-base, theoretical, selfish, submissive, ghostlike, and very very frequently wrong, root-to-stem. Only FIML can deal with this and fix it. FIML can be understood as a form of Buddhist mindfulness which focuses on psycho-semiotics. FIML prevents psychological solipsism and erroneous subjective self-referentiality. Even advanced Buddhist monks will benefit from FIML practice. ABN
#abn #analysis #BuddhistPractice #CommunicationErrors #FunctionalInterpersonalMetaLinguisticsFIML #psycholinguistics #psychology #semiotics -
The 10 marriage-ending sentences you should never say to your partner. Even in the heat of an argument, these throwaway lines can do SO much damage, says TRACEY COX. Here’s what to try instead
We’ve all said things in the heat of an argument with our partner that we didn’t fully mean. Problem is, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle once it’s out there.
So many of the words couples think are throwaway lines do far more damage than we realise.
Studies show having contempt for your partner – continually attacking their character and belittling them – is one of the strongest predictors of divorce.
Those accusing comments aren’t just unkind, they’re deadly.
The next time you feel the urge to say one of these ten sentences, stop, take a breath, and try these alternatives.
Your relationship will thank you for it – and you might just get what you want.
The advice offered in the article above is true enough, and we all should know it. But it is also extremely shallow. Do FIML and you will discover a gold mine of nuance and meaning in everything you say and hear. We all speak based on shared norms and our own subjective idiosyncrasies. The stuff above is a species of shared norms. Your and your partner’s idiosyncratic material is thousands of time richer and more nuanced and more interesting. Only FIML will help you find it. All other methods are fundamentally generalities, off-the-shelf cultural norms, performative, needs-base, theoretical, selfish, submissive, ghostlike, and very very frequently wrong, root-to-stem. Only FIML can deal with this and fix it. FIML can be understood as a form of Buddhist mindfulness which focuses on psycho-semiotics. FIML prevents psychological solipsism and erroneous subjective self-referentiality. Even advanced Buddhist monks will benefit from FIML practice. ABN
#abn #analysis #BuddhistPractice #CommunicationErrors #FunctionalInterpersonalMetaLinguisticsFIML #psycholinguistics #psychology #semiotics -
The 10 marriage-ending sentences you should never say to your partner. Even in the heat of an argument, these throwaway lines can do SO much damage, says TRACEY COX. Here’s what to try instead
We’ve all said things in the heat of an argument with our partner that we didn’t fully mean. Problem is, you can’t put the genie back in the bottle once it’s out there.
So many of the words couples think are throwaway lines do far more damage than we realise.
Studies show having contempt for your partner – continually attacking their character and belittling them – is one of the strongest predictors of divorce.
Those accusing comments aren’t just unkind, they’re deadly.
The next time you feel the urge to say one of these ten sentences, stop, take a breath, and try these alternatives.
Your relationship will thank you for it – and you might just get what you want.
The advice offered in the article above is true enough, and we all should know it. But it is also extremely shallow. Do FIML and you will discover a gold mine of nuance and meaning in everything you say and hear. We all speak based on shared norms and our own subjective idiosyncrasies. The stuff above is a species of shared norms. Your and your partner’s idiosyncratic material is thousands of time richer and more nuanced and more interesting. Only FIML will help you find it. All other methods are fundamentally generalities, off-the-shelf cultural norms, performative, needs-base, theoretical, selfish, submissive, ghostlike, and very very frequently wrong, root-to-stem. Only FIML can deal with this and fix it. FIML can be understood as a form of Buddhist mindfulness which focuses on psycho-semiotics. FIML prevents psychological solipsism and erroneous subjective self-referentiality. Even advanced Buddhist monks will benefit from FIML practice. ABN
#abn #analysis #BuddhistPractice #CommunicationErrors #FunctionalInterpersonalMetaLinguisticsFIML #psycholinguistics #psychology #semiotics -
The REAL reason women used to SLUT SHAME:
#anthropology #art #history #humor #psycholinguistics #semiotics -
The REAL reason women used to SLUT SHAME:
#anthropology #art #history #humor #psycholinguistics #semiotics -
The REAL reason women used to SLUT SHAME:
#anthropology #art #history #humor #psycholinguistics #semiotics -
The REAL reason women used to SLUT SHAME:
#anthropology #art #history #humor #psycholinguistics #semiotics -
The REAL reason women used to SLUT SHAME:
#anthropology #art #history #humor #psycholinguistics #semiotics -
Information = Comprehension × Extension • Preamble 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2026/06/16/information-comprehension-x-extension-preamble-a/Perhaps the best perspective from which to bring the connection between the theory of signs and the theory of inquiry into its proper focus is Peirce's own Theory of Information, which he began setting forth in lectures at Harvard and the Lowell Institute in 1865 and 1866. Peirce encapsulates the elements of his theory in the following formula.
• Information = Comprehension × Extension
In the Resources below I link to my study of Peirce's 1865–1866 Lectures on the Logic of Science, with selections from the lectures and my commentary on them.
Ten summers ago I hit on what struck me as a new insight into one of the most recalcitrant problems in Peirce's semiotics and logic of science, namely, the relation between “the manner in which different representations stand for their objects” and the way in which different inferences transform states of information. I roughed out a sketch of my epiphany in a series of blog posts then set it aside for the cool of later reflection. Now looks to be a choice moment for taking another look.
#Peirce #Logic #Inference #Inquiry #Abduction #Induction #Deduction #LogicOfScience
#Information #Comprehension #Extension #InformationEqualsComprehensionTimesExtension
#Semiotics #SignRelations #Icon #Index #Symbol #PragmaticSemioticInformation -
Information = Comprehension × Extension • Preamble 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2026/06/16/information-comprehension-x-extension-preamble-a/Perhaps the best perspective from which to bring the connection between the theory of signs and the theory of inquiry into its proper focus is Peirce's own Theory of Information, which he began setting forth in lectures at Harvard and the Lowell Institute in 1865 and 1866. Peirce encapsulates the elements of his theory in the following formula.
• Information = Comprehension × Extension
In the Resources below I link to my study of Peirce's 1865–1866 Lectures on the Logic of Science, with selections from the lectures and my commentary on them.
Ten summers ago I hit on what struck me as a new insight into one of the most recalcitrant problems in Peirce's semiotics and logic of science, namely, the relation between “the manner in which different representations stand for their objects” and the way in which different inferences transform states of information. I roughed out a sketch of my epiphany in a series of blog posts then set it aside for the cool of later reflection. Now looks to be a choice moment for taking another look.
#Peirce #Logic #Inference #Inquiry #Abduction #Induction #Deduction #LogicOfScience
#Information #Comprehension #Extension #InformationEqualsComprehensionTimesExtension
#Semiotics #SignRelations #Icon #Index #Symbol #PragmaticSemioticInformation -
Information = Comprehension × Extension • Preamble 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2026/06/16/information-comprehension-x-extension-preamble-a/Perhaps the best perspective from which to bring the connection between the theory of signs and the theory of inquiry into its proper focus is Peirce's own Theory of Information, which he began setting forth in lectures at Harvard and the Lowell Institute in 1865 and 1866. Peirce encapsulates the elements of his theory in the following formula.
• Information = Comprehension × Extension
In the Resources below I link to my study of Peirce's 1865–1866 Lectures on the Logic of Science, with selections from the lectures and my commentary on them.
Ten summers ago I hit on what struck me as a new insight into one of the most recalcitrant problems in Peirce's semiotics and logic of science, namely, the relation between “the manner in which different representations stand for their objects” and the way in which different inferences transform states of information. I roughed out a sketch of my epiphany in a series of blog posts then set it aside for the cool of later reflection. Now looks to be a choice moment for taking another look.
#Peirce #Logic #Inference #Inquiry #Abduction #Induction #Deduction #LogicOfScience
#Information #Comprehension #Extension #InformationEqualsComprehensionTimesExtension
#Semiotics #SignRelations #Icon #Index #Symbol #PragmaticSemioticInformation -
Information = Comprehension × Extension • Preamble 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2026/06/16/information-comprehension-x-extension-preamble-a/Perhaps the best perspective from which to bring the connection between the theory of signs and the theory of inquiry into its proper focus is Peirce's own Theory of Information, which he began setting forth in lectures at Harvard and the Lowell Institute in 1865 and 1866. Peirce encapsulates the elements of his theory in the following formula.
• Information = Comprehension × Extension
In the Resources below I link to my study of Peirce's 1865–1866 Lectures on the Logic of Science, with selections from the lectures and my commentary on them.
Ten summers ago I hit on what struck me as a new insight into one of the most recalcitrant problems in Peirce's semiotics and logic of science, namely, the relation between “the manner in which different representations stand for their objects” and the way in which different inferences transform states of information. I roughed out a sketch of my epiphany in a series of blog posts then set it aside for the cool of later reflection. Now looks to be a choice moment for taking another look.
#Peirce #Logic #Inference #Inquiry #Abduction #Induction #Deduction #LogicOfScience
#Information #Comprehension #Extension #InformationEqualsComprehensionTimesExtension
#Semiotics #SignRelations #Icon #Index #Symbol #PragmaticSemioticInformation -
Information = Comprehension × Extension • Preamble 1
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2026/06/16/information-comprehension-x-extension-preamble-a/Perhaps the best perspective from which to bring the connection between the theory of signs and the theory of inquiry into its proper focus is Peirce's own Theory of Information, which he began setting forth in lectures at Harvard and the Lowell Institute in 1865 and 1866. Peirce encapsulates the elements of his theory in the following formula.
• Information = Comprehension × Extension
In the Resources below I link to my study of Peirce's 1865–1866 Lectures on the Logic of Science, with selections from the lectures and my commentary on them.
Ten summers ago I hit on what struck me as a new insight into one of the most recalcitrant problems in Peirce's semiotics and logic of science, namely, the relation between “the manner in which different representations stand for their objects” and the way in which different inferences transform states of information. I roughed out a sketch of my epiphany in a series of blog posts then set it aside for the cool of later reflection. Now looks to be a choice moment for taking another look.
#Peirce #Logic #Inference #Inquiry #Abduction #Induction #Deduction #LogicOfScience
#Information #Comprehension #Extension #InformationEqualsComprehensionTimesExtension
#Semiotics #SignRelations #Icon #Index #Symbol #PragmaticSemioticInformation -
Философия языка | Philosophy of language
Філософія мови, Filosofia del linguaggio, язык, познание, семиотика, мышление, сознание, language, cognition, semiotics, thinking, consciousness
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1034Аналитическая философия | Analytical philosophy
Аналітична філософія, Analytische Philosophie, американский прагматизм, британский неореализм
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1035 -
Философия языка | Philosophy of language
Філософія мови, Filosofia del linguaggio, язык, познание, семиотика, мышление, сознание, language, cognition, semiotics, thinking, consciousness
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1034Аналитическая философия | Analytical philosophy
Аналітична філософія, Analytische Philosophie, американский прагматизм, британский неореализм
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1035 -
Философия языка | Philosophy of language
Філософія мови, Filosofia del linguaggio, язык, познание, семиотика, мышление, сознание, language, cognition, semiotics, thinking, consciousness
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1034Аналитическая философия | Analytical philosophy
Аналітична філософія, Analytische Philosophie, американский прагматизм, британский неореализм
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1035 -
Философия языка | Philosophy of language
Філософія мови, Filosofia del linguaggio, язык, познание, семиотика, мышление, сознание, language, cognition, semiotics, thinking, consciousness
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1034Аналитическая философия | Analytical philosophy
Аналітична філософія, Analytische Philosophie, американский прагматизм, британский неореализм
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1035 -
Философия языка | Philosophy of language
Філософія мови, Filosofia del linguaggio, язык, познание, семиотика, мышление, сознание, language, cognition, semiotics, thinking, consciousness
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1034Аналитическая философия | Analytical philosophy
Аналітична філософія, Analytische Philosophie, американский прагматизм, британский неореализм
https://t.me/scilib_yura15cbx/1035 -
Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't
Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...
https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida -
Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't
Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...
https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida -
Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't
Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...
https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida -
Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't
Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...
https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida -
Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't
Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...
https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida -
New article: Where is Meaning? (Part One)
A few years back, while waiting on the kettle to boil, I was staring at a can of Diet Coke. I was a bit zoned out and a question popped into my head. The Diet Coke logo clearly "meant" something to me, but where was that meaning? This moment started me down a multi-year rabbit hole into meaning that I'm writing up as a series of articles.
https://jameshorsley.me/articles/where-is-meaning-part-one
#meaning #semantics #pragmatics #ai #philosophy #linguistics #semiotics
-
New article: Where is Meaning? (Part One)
A few years back, while waiting on the kettle to boil, I was staring at a can of Diet Coke. I was a bit zoned out and a question popped into my head. The Diet Coke logo clearly "meant" something to me, but where was that meaning? This moment started me down a multi-year rabbit hole into meaning that I'm writing up as a series of articles.
https://jameshorsley.me/articles/where-is-meaning-part-one
#meaning #semantics #pragmatics #ai #philosophy #linguistics #semiotics
-
New article: Where is Meaning? (Part One)
A few years back, while waiting on the kettle to boil, I was staring at a can of Diet Coke. I was a bit zoned out and a question popped into my head. The Diet Coke logo clearly "meant" something to me, but where was that meaning? This moment started me down a multi-year rabbit hole into meaning that I'm writing up as a series of articles.
https://jameshorsley.me/articles/where-is-meaning-part-one
#meaning #semantics #pragmatics #ai #philosophy #linguistics #semiotics
-
New article: Where is Meaning? (Part One)
A few years back, while waiting on the kettle to boil, I was staring at a can of Diet Coke. I was a bit zoned out and a question popped into my head. The Diet Coke logo clearly "meant" something to me, but where was that meaning? This moment started me down a multi-year rabbit hole into meaning that I'm writing up as a series of articles.
https://jameshorsley.me/articles/where-is-meaning-part-one
#meaning #semantics #pragmatics #ai #philosophy #linguistics #semiotics
-
New article: Where is Meaning? (Part One)
A few years back, while waiting on the kettle to boil, I was staring at a can of Diet Coke. I was a bit zoned out and a question popped into my head. The Diet Coke logo clearly "meant" something to me, but where was that meaning? This moment started me down a multi-year rabbit hole into meaning that I'm writing up as a series of articles.
https://jameshorsley.me/articles/where-is-meaning-part-one
#meaning #semantics #pragmatics #ai #philosophy #linguistics #semiotics
-
Just a FYI for those interested, only liberal clowns care if you call us “Indians”. We don’t mind
The best way to refer to us collectively is by our nation.
99% of us never gave any thought to the Redskins, and all my friends thought changing the name was the bigger slap in the face.
We don’t care if hot White/Adian/Hispanic chicks dress up as NDNs1. Just so long as they’re hot.
We don’t really care if you call us Chief, but Tonto will probably earn you a punch.
We remain the demographic that enlists in the military more than any other, but rates of domestic violence and other crimes on the reservations continue to be a major problem, indicating that maybe it’s not the best way to go.
NDNs like Whites, Asians and Hispanics. We’re not as relaxed around Blacks and we generally really hate [dot] Indians.
Sometimes in film and TV shows you’ll see NDNs wearing what may seem like a strange mix of western and classically Native attire.
This isn’t a mistake. Around the time that the first Yellowstone prequel was set, the majority of Comanche wore “mixed” White/Hispanic and Native clothing.
Interestingly, at the same time, the bulk of the Navajo were stubbornly clinging to buckskins and furs.
Just some trivia for you.
- NDN is short text for Indian ↩︎
-
Just a FYI for those interested, only liberal clowns care if you call us “Indians”. We don’t mind
The best way to refer to us collectively is by our nation.
99% of us never gave any thought to the Redskins, and all my friends thought changing the name was the bigger slap in the face.
We don’t care if hot White/Adian/Hispanic chicks dress up as NDNs1. Just so long as they’re hot.
We don’t really care if you call us Chief, but Tonto will probably earn you a punch.
We remain the demographic that enlists in the military more than any other, but rates of domestic violence and other crimes on the reservations continue to be a major problem, indicating that maybe it’s not the best way to go.
NDNs like Whites, Asians and Hispanics. We’re not as relaxed around Blacks and we generally really hate [dot] Indians.
Sometimes in film and TV shows you’ll see NDNs wearing what may seem like a strange mix of western and classically Native attire.
This isn’t a mistake. Around the time that the first Yellowstone prequel was set, the majority of Comanche wore “mixed” White/Hispanic and Native clothing.
Interestingly, at the same time, the bulk of the Navajo were stubbornly clinging to buckskins and furs.
Just some trivia for you.
- NDN is short text for Indian ↩︎
-
Just a FYI for those interested, only liberal clowns care if you call us “Indians”. We don’t mind
The best way to refer to us collectively is by our nation.
99% of us never gave any thought to the Redskins, and all my friends thought changing the name was the bigger slap in the face.
We don’t care if hot White/Adian/Hispanic chicks dress up as NDNs1. Just so long as they’re hot.
We don’t really care if you call us Chief, but Tonto will probably earn you a punch.
We remain the demographic that enlists in the military more than any other, but rates of domestic violence and other crimes on the reservations continue to be a major problem, indicating that maybe it’s not the best way to go.
NDNs like Whites, Asians and Hispanics. We’re not as relaxed around Blacks and we generally really hate [dot] Indians.
Sometimes in film and TV shows you’ll see NDNs wearing what may seem like a strange mix of western and classically Native attire.
This isn’t a mistake. Around the time that the first Yellowstone prequel was set, the majority of Comanche wore “mixed” White/Hispanic and Native clothing.
Interestingly, at the same time, the bulk of the Navajo were stubbornly clinging to buckskins and furs.
Just some trivia for you.
- NDN is short text for Indian ↩︎
-
Just a FYI for those interested, only liberal clowns care if you call us “Indians”. We don’t mind
The best way to refer to us collectively is by our nation.
99% of us never gave any thought to the Redskins, and all my friends thought changing the name was the bigger slap in the face.
We don’t care if hot White/Adian/Hispanic chicks dress up as NDNs1. Just so long as they’re hot.
We don’t really care if you call us Chief, but Tonto will probably earn you a punch.
We remain the demographic that enlists in the military more than any other, but rates of domestic violence and other crimes on the reservations continue to be a major problem, indicating that maybe it’s not the best way to go.
NDNs like Whites, Asians and Hispanics. We’re not as relaxed around Blacks and we generally really hate [dot] Indians.
Sometimes in film and TV shows you’ll see NDNs wearing what may seem like a strange mix of western and classically Native attire.
This isn’t a mistake. Around the time that the first Yellowstone prequel was set, the majority of Comanche wore “mixed” White/Hispanic and Native clothing.
Interestingly, at the same time, the bulk of the Navajo were stubbornly clinging to buckskins and furs.
Just some trivia for you.
- NDN is short text for Indian ↩︎
-
Just a FYI for those interested, only liberal clowns care if you call us “Indians”. We don’t mind
The best way to refer to us collectively is by our nation.
99% of us never gave any thought to the Redskins, and all my friends thought changing the name was the bigger slap in the face.
We don’t care if hot White/Adian/Hispanic chicks dress up as NDNs1. Just so long as they’re hot.
We don’t really care if you call us Chief, but Tonto will probably earn you a punch.
We remain the demographic that enlists in the military more than any other, but rates of domestic violence and other crimes on the reservations continue to be a major problem, indicating that maybe it’s not the best way to go.
NDNs like Whites, Asians and Hispanics. We’re not as relaxed around Blacks and we generally really hate [dot] Indians.
Sometimes in film and TV shows you’ll see NDNs wearing what may seem like a strange mix of western and classically Native attire.
This isn’t a mistake. Around the time that the first Yellowstone prequel was set, the majority of Comanche wore “mixed” White/Hispanic and Native clothing.
Interestingly, at the same time, the bulk of the Navajo were stubbornly clinging to buckskins and furs.
Just some trivia for you.
- NDN is short text for Indian ↩︎
-
Semiotic proprioception in dreams and waking
Proprioception means “one’s own” or “ones’ individual” (Latin proprius) “perception.”
We normally use this word to refer to our physical position in the world—whether we are standing or sitting, how we are moving, and how much energy we are using.
When we dream, our capacity for physical movement, with rare exceptions, is paralyzed. But we still do a sort of proprioception in dreams—a semiotic proprioception, or proprioception within the semiology of the dream.
In dreams, we grope through semiotic associations and respond, gropingly, to them. People and things often look smaller in dreams, or distorted, because we do not have either the need or the capacity to calibrate our physical proprioception as we do in waking life.
Dreams move from one semiotic proprioception to another via our individual four-dimensional (3D plus time) groping/associative function. In one short segment of a dream we are at home, then we go through a door only to find ourselves on a boat in the ocean. Our 4D semiotic proprioception within dreams readily accepts groping, associative shifts like this.
Much of what we perceive when we are awake is memory. We glance at a room we know well and call up our memory of it rather than actually look closely at the room.
I am fairly sure that the memories we call up to aid perception while we are awake are much the same as the groping proprioception we experience in dreams. A major difference is when we are awake we can and do check our waking proprioception with the people and objects around us, while in dreams the associative function has a much freer range.
Notice how dreams move from scene to scene rather slowly. Things can go quickly, but normally dreams grope somewhat slowly along the 4D path of semiotic proprioception.
In waking life, our dreamy use of memory and association to aid perception of the world happens constantly.
When we speak with another person, we use this function to make groping associations concerning what we think they are saying. We grope and respond to them as in a dream while at the same time searching for clues that indicate we are both in the same dream.
These clues that two people may sort of “agree on” while speaking are normally standard public semiotics that belong to whatever culture(s) they share. By “agreeing” on them, we form a sort of agreeable camaraderie with whomever we are speaking, and this can be satisfying, but if we only get this, it can also become deeply unsatisfying.
The four dimensional groping/dreamy function of our mind is far richer than any standard collection of public semiotics. In our public lives—professional, commercial, based on organizations, etc.—we have, at present, little recourse but to accept normal public semiotics, to agree with them and manifest agreement.
We can express some deviation from them and sometimes make jokes about them, but we are generally fairly bound to the semiotics of the culture or organization that generates the context of our speaking. Consider how people in the same church or school are bound by the semiotics of those institutions.
In our intimate relations, however, we do have recourse to investigate and understand how our groping, 4D semiotic proprioception works. This is what FIML does. It allows partners to observe, analyze, and understand the semiotic proprioceptions of their minds as they are actually functioning during interpersonal communication.
If you constantly avoid FIML types of investigations, you will be stuck with a mix of dimly shared public/private semiotics that will tend to become highly ambiguous, even volatile, or very shallow.
#analysis #art #BuddhistPractice #FunctionalInterpersonalMetaLinguisticsFIML #philosophy #psycholinguistics #psychology #semiotics #thought -
Semiotic proprioception in dreams and waking
Proprioception means “one’s own” or “ones’ individual” (Latin proprius) “perception.”
We normally use this word to refer to our physical position in the world—whether we are standing or sitting, how we are moving, and how much energy we are using.
When we dream, our capacity for physical movement, with rare exceptions, is paralyzed. But we still do a sort of proprioception in dreams—a semiotic proprioception, or proprioception within the semiology of the dream.
In dreams, we grope through semiotic associations and respond, gropingly, to them. People and things often look smaller in dreams, or distorted, because we do not have either the need or the capacity to calibrate our physical proprioception as we do in waking life.
Dreams move from one semiotic proprioception to another via our individual four-dimensional (3D plus time) groping/associative function. In one short segment of a dream we are at home, then we go through a door only to find ourselves on a boat in the ocean. Our 4D semiotic proprioception within dreams readily accepts groping, associative shifts like this.
Much of what we perceive when we are awake is memory. We glance at a room we know well and call up our memory of it rather than actually look closely at the room.
I am fairly sure that the memories we call up to aid perception while we are awake are much the same as the groping proprioception we experience in dreams. A major difference is when we are awake we can and do check our waking proprioception with the people and objects around us, while in dreams the associative function has a much freer range.
Notice how dreams move from scene to scene rather slowly. Things can go quickly, but normally dreams grope somewhat slowly along the 4D path of semiotic proprioception.
In waking life, our dreamy use of memory and association to aid perception of the world happens constantly.
When we speak with another person, we use this function to make groping associations concerning what we think they are saying. We grope and respond to them as in a dream while at the same time searching for clues that indicate we are both in the same dream.
These clues that two people may sort of “agree on” while speaking are normally standard public semiotics that belong to whatever culture(s) they share. By “agreeing” on them, we form a sort of agreeable camaraderie with whomever we are speaking, and this can be satisfying, but if we only get this, it can also become deeply unsatisfying.
The four dimensional groping/dreamy function of our mind is far richer than any standard collection of public semiotics. In our public lives—professional, commercial, based on organizations, etc.—we have, at present, little recourse but to accept normal public semiotics, to agree with them and manifest agreement.
We can express some deviation from them and sometimes make jokes about them, but we are generally fairly bound to the semiotics of the culture or organization that generates the context of our speaking. Consider how people in the same church or school are bound by the semiotics of those institutions.
In our intimate relations, however, we do have recourse to investigate and understand how our groping, 4D semiotic proprioception works. This is what FIML does. It allows partners to observe, analyze, and understand the semiotic proprioceptions of their minds as they are actually functioning during interpersonal communication.
If you constantly avoid FIML types of investigations, you will be stuck with a mix of dimly shared public/private semiotics that will tend to become highly ambiguous, even volatile, or very shallow.
#analysis #art #BuddhistPractice #FunctionalInterpersonalMetaLinguisticsFIML #philosophy #psycholinguistics #psychology #semiotics #thought -
Semiotic proprioception in dreams and waking
Proprioception means “one’s own” or “ones’ individual” (Latin proprius) “perception.”
We normally use this word to refer to our physical position in the world—whether we are standing or sitting, how we are moving, and how much energy we are using.
When we dream, our capacity for physical movement, with rare exceptions, is paralyzed. But we still do a sort of proprioception in dreams—a semiotic proprioception, or proprioception within the semiology of the dream.
In dreams, we grope through semiotic associations and respond, gropingly, to them. People and things often look smaller in dreams, or distorted, because we do not have either the need or the capacity to calibrate our physical proprioception as we do in waking life.
Dreams move from one semiotic proprioception to another via our individual four-dimensional (3D plus time) groping/associative function. In one short segment of a dream we are at home, then we go through a door only to find ourselves on a boat in the ocean. Our 4D semiotic proprioception within dreams readily accepts groping, associative shifts like this.
Much of what we perceive when we are awake is memory. We glance at a room we know well and call up our memory of it rather than actually look closely at the room.
I am fairly sure that the memories we call up to aid perception while we are awake are much the same as the groping proprioception we experience in dreams. A major difference is when we are awake we can and do check our waking proprioception with the people and objects around us, while in dreams the associative function has a much freer range.
Notice how dreams move from scene to scene rather slowly. Things can go quickly, but normally dreams grope somewhat slowly along the 4D path of semiotic proprioception.
In waking life, our dreamy use of memory and association to aid perception of the world happens constantly.
When we speak with another person, we use this function to make groping associations concerning what we think they are saying. We grope and respond to them as in a dream while at the same time searching for clues that indicate we are both in the same dream.
These clues that two people may sort of “agree on” while speaking are normally standard public semiotics that belong to whatever culture(s) they share. By “agreeing” on them, we form a sort of agreeable camaraderie with whomever we are speaking, and this can be satisfying, but if we only get this, it can also become deeply unsatisfying.
The four dimensional groping/dreamy function of our mind is far richer than any standard collection of public semiotics. In our public lives—professional, commercial, based on organizations, etc.—we have, at present, little recourse but to accept normal public semiotics, to agree with them and manifest agreement.
We can express some deviation from them and sometimes make jokes about them, but we are generally fairly bound to the semiotics of the culture or organization that generates the context of our speaking. Consider how people in the same church or school are bound by the semiotics of those institutions.
In our intimate relations, however, we do have recourse to investigate and understand how our groping, 4D semiotic proprioception works. This is what FIML does. It allows partners to observe, analyze, and understand the semiotic proprioceptions of their minds as they are actually functioning during interpersonal communication.
If you constantly avoid FIML types of investigations, you will be stuck with a mix of dimly shared public/private semiotics that will tend to become highly ambiguous, even volatile, or very shallow.
#analysis #art #BuddhistPractice #FunctionalInterpersonalMetaLinguisticsFIML #philosophy #psycholinguistics #psychology #semiotics #thought -
Semiotic proprioception in dreams and waking
Proprioception means “one’s own” or “ones’ individual” (Latin proprius) “perception.”
We normally use this word to refer to our physical position in the world—whether we are standing or sitting, how we are moving, and how much energy we are using.
When we dream, our capacity for physical movement, with rare exceptions, is paralyzed. But we still do a sort of proprioception in dreams—a semiotic proprioception, or proprioception within the semiology of the dream.
In dreams, we grope through semiotic associations and respond, gropingly, to them. People and things often look smaller in dreams, or distorted, because we do not have either the need or the capacity to calibrate our physical proprioception as we do in waking life.
Dreams move from one semiotic proprioception to another via our individual four-dimensional (3D plus time) groping/associative function. In one short segment of a dream we are at home, then we go through a door only to find ourselves on a boat in the ocean. Our 4D semiotic proprioception within dreams readily accepts groping, associative shifts like this.
Much of what we perceive when we are awake is memory. We glance at a room we know well and call up our memory of it rather than actually look closely at the room.
I am fairly sure that the memories we call up to aid perception while we are awake are much the same as the groping proprioception we experience in dreams. A major difference is when we are awake we can and do check our waking proprioception with the people and objects around us, while in dreams the associative function has a much freer range.
Notice how dreams move from scene to scene rather slowly. Things can go quickly, but normally dreams grope somewhat slowly along the 4D path of semiotic proprioception.
In waking life, our dreamy use of memory and association to aid perception of the world happens constantly.
When we speak with another person, we use this function to make groping associations concerning what we think they are saying. We grope and respond to them as in a dream while at the same time searching for clues that indicate we are both in the same dream.
These clues that two people may sort of “agree on” while speaking are normally standard public semiotics that belong to whatever culture(s) they share. By “agreeing” on them, we form a sort of agreeable camaraderie with whomever we are speaking, and this can be satisfying, but if we only get this, it can also become deeply unsatisfying.
The four dimensional groping/dreamy function of our mind is far richer than any standard collection of public semiotics. In our public lives—professional, commercial, based on organizations, etc.—we have, at present, little recourse but to accept normal public semiotics, to agree with them and manifest agreement.
We can express some deviation from them and sometimes make jokes about them, but we are generally fairly bound to the semiotics of the culture or organization that generates the context of our speaking. Consider how people in the same church or school are bound by the semiotics of those institutions.
In our intimate relations, however, we do have recourse to investigate and understand how our groping, 4D semiotic proprioception works. This is what FIML does. It allows partners to observe, analyze, and understand the semiotic proprioceptions of their minds as they are actually functioning during interpersonal communication.
If you constantly avoid FIML types of investigations, you will be stuck with a mix of dimly shared public/private semiotics that will tend to become highly ambiguous, even volatile, or very shallow.
#analysis #art #BuddhistPractice #FunctionalInterpersonalMetaLinguisticsFIML #philosophy #psycholinguistics #psychology #semiotics #thought -
Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't
Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...
https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida -
Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't
Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...
https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida -
Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't
Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...
https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida -
Semiotics - why an LLM doesn't
Saussure, Peirce and Derrida as the key to understanding LLMs. Why a model is not a mind, but a mach...
https://gruszka.dev/en/semiotics-and-llm.html
#llm #ai #semiotics #signs #linguistics #languagemodels #saussure #peirce #derrida
