> On 16 Jul 2020, at 5:40 pm, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi, David (and Klaus),
> 
> In response to Klaus Krippendorff’s recent notes, David Sless wrote, “I agree with much of what you have said as you know. I’d like to push one point just a little further, but to do so we need to make a distinction that goes beyond predictable/unpredictable and consider a realm of non-predictable phenomena generated by people. … Happy to elaborate but that is another thread.”
> 
> I’m curious, so I’ve started a new thread.

Ah! OK, I was not expecting that! Here goes…

I’ve been working (thinking and writing) in this space for some time, quite a lot of it related to design and in my case related specifically to information design. I leave it to others to find or reject its relevance to other areas.

The arguments and evidence in support of the distinctions are scattered in a number of publications and I have not yet provided a coherent gloss that would serve as an introduction. 

I am in the process of preparing a text book for undergraduates with Dr Ruth Shrensky which will provide (we hope) a coherent view of the main ideas. Until then, I can point to some publications that provide glimpses to the central arguments.

Briefly (and totally superficially), it is possible to classify phenomena into three groups
	• Predictable phenomena are governed by scientific ideas of evidence, causality and regularity. 
	• Unpredictable phenomena are those that we do not have sufficient evidence to ascribe causality and regularity to enable prediction.
	• None predictable phenomena are those that fall outside of the first two. There are some that occur in nature, but my focus is on those created by people. Specifically, my focus is on communication.

The central concept is ‘…’. It takes all of my book ‘In Search of Semiotics’ to lay the ground which leads to a short summary of the concept in the final section the book. I have copied that summary below.

There are also some papers in which I elaborate on some of the main issues. Those are listed after the summary. At the very least, I hope you enjoy them. Whether they convince you that my suggestion that there is an area of human communication activity which is none predictable, Ieave to you and welcome your comments.

……..

> Letness
> We have arrived at the end of our search and need to identify the simple nature of our discovery with a special term of its own. We need to speak of this basic quality of semiosis in a special way. I shall allow myself the luxury of one neologism—a tam that will identify the core of semiosis and allow us to understand its nature; I shall call it letness.
> 
> Letness is characterised by a fundamental anarchy. It is subject to no logic, no rules of inference, no causal relations or moral imperatives. We may of course attach these things to letness retrospectively or even at the time when a new stand-for relation is created but there is no necessary requirement for letness to be subject to any imperative. Further, letness is not reducible to some other state, condition, or explanation. When a mathematician says 'let x stand for y', we cannot reduce this statement down to some more basic construction—untie its logical knots or reveal its inner workings. It stands alone. Letness we may take to be the central metaphysical necessity of the semiotic point of view.
> 
> Letness as a spiritual quality allows us to define both the scope and limitations of our own freedom of action. It is letness which enables us to create ourselves in the image of our gods and yet at the same time remain fragile mortals forever unable to take an Olympian view. Letness provides a defining characteristic for our basic humanity. As I sit writing this book on a computer I am daily conscious of the difference between my thoughts and the slavish operations of the machine. What test would be acceptable to demonstrate that the machine's intelligence was comparable to our own? The difference is sharply focused by letness. The machine cannot perform this basic act of semiotic freedom. I can. The machine can manipulate the substance of signs in the most wonderful ways but it cannot bring a new sign into existence. It may display the superficial characteristics of semiosis by its manipulative power but it cannot invoke a single new sign, nor can it shift its focus from the position chosen by its programmers. If we could create machines that would embody letness then we will enter a new era. However, if we achieved such a goal, we would also be faced with a machine that was as prone to uncertainty as we are and its visions would be subject to the same logic of positions that holds us in place.
> 
> We are therefore a unique and paradoxical blend of restrained freedom. While we reach for heaven we must never forget that our feet cannot leave the ground. (Sless 1986 pp 159-160).
> 
> David Sless. (1986). In Search of Semiotics. Totowa, New Jersey: Barnes & Noble Books.
……….



David Sless. (1991). Communication and certainty. Australian Journal of Communication, 18(3), 19-31.
Accessed: July 17 2020: https://communication.org.au/communication-certainty/	

David Sless & Ruth Shrensky (1995). The boundary of communication. Australian Journal of Communication, 22(2), 31-47.
Accessed: July 17 2020: https://communication.org.au/defining-communication-boundary/

David Sless. (2002). Designing Philosophy 1. Proceedings from Proceedings of the Design Research Society International Conference at Brunel University, September 5-7 2002, Stoke on Trent, UK.
Accessed: July 17 2020: https://communication.org.au/designing-philosophy-1/

David Sless. (2007). Designing Philosophy. Visible Language, 41-2, 101-126.
Accessed: July 17 2020: https://communication.org.au/designing-philosophy-2/






David


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------