Comments on: Top 10 ways to get stuff into two piles http://carldyke.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/top-10-ways-to-get-stuff-into-two-piles/ Now with 50% more socratic deathmarch! Sat, 07 Nov 2009 21:06:08 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Carl http://carldyke.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/top-10-ways-to-get-stuff-into-two-piles/#comment-330 Carl Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:30:58 +0000 http://carldyke.wordpress.com/?p=123#comment-330 Nice. Thanks for that connection, Peter. So where do we sort into that, as educators? I have colleagues who think each way! Nice. Thanks for that connection, Peter. So where do we sort into that, as educators? I have colleagues who think each way!

]]> By: peter http://carldyke.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/top-10-ways-to-get-stuff-into-two-piles/#comment-323 peter Sun, 14 Sep 2008 06:53:28 +0000 http://carldyke.wordpress.com/?p=123#comment-323 Before Sergio Leone (#3), there was Bertrand Russell: Generally-speaking, there are two types of work in the world: one type of work involves moving some of the earth's surface relative to the remainder; the other type of work involves supervising people doing the first type. On the whole, the second type of work is preferable to the first. Before Sergio Leone (#3), there was Bertrand Russell: Generally-speaking, there are two types of work in the world: one type of work involves moving some of the earth’s surface relative to the remainder; the other type of work involves supervising people doing the first type. On the whole, the second type of work is preferable to the first.

]]> By: Default theories « Dead Voles http://carldyke.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/top-10-ways-to-get-stuff-into-two-piles/#comment-264 Default theories « Dead Voles Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:10:31 +0000 http://carldyke.wordpress.com/?p=123#comment-264 [...] Top 10 ways to get stuff into two piles [...] [...] Top 10 ways to get stuff into two piles [...]

]]> By: » Epistemological battlespaces In Harmonium: Being in the main the musings of a Symbolic Anthropologist http://carldyke.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/top-10-ways-to-get-stuff-into-two-piles/#comment-257 » Epistemological battlespaces In Harmonium: Being in the main the musings of a Symbolic Anthropologist Sun, 24 Aug 2008 15:26:36 +0000 http://carldyke.wordpress.com/?p=123#comment-257 [...] a rather tongue in cheek post, Carl Dyke talks about Top 10 ways to get stuff into two piles. One important observation he makes is that In the classic version of two piles analysis there is [...] [...] a rather tongue in cheek post, Carl Dyke talks about Top 10 ways to get stuff into two piles. One important observation he makes is that In the classic version of two piles analysis there is [...]

]]> By: enkerli http://carldyke.wordpress.com/2008/07/29/top-10-ways-to-get-stuff-into-two-piles/#comment-215 enkerli Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:14:17 +0000 http://carldyke.wordpress.com/?p=123#comment-215 You know the old jokes... -"There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don't." -"There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand ternary, those who confuse it with binary, and those who can't understand either." Your mention of structural anthropology is quite opportune. Through the linguistic basis of anthropological approaches to structuralism, we may link this "root of all thinking" notion back to Saussurean semiology and contrast it with the hairiness of Peircean semiotics. Post-structural anthropology (especially North American approaches to linguistic and symbolic anthropologies) have used a number of ternary models, perhaps in direct reaction with the binary obsessions of Lévi-Strauss and other European universalists. Still caught up in glorified numerology, I guess. But usually with an even funnier twist than Lévi-Strauss's «forme canonique». You know the old jokes…
-”There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand binary and those who don’t.”
-”There are 10 kinds of people: those who understand ternary, those who confuse it with binary, and those who can’t understand either.”

Your mention of structural anthropology is quite opportune. Through the linguistic basis of anthropological approaches to structuralism, we may link this “root of all thinking” notion back to Saussurean semiology and contrast it with the hairiness of Peircean semiotics. Post-structural anthropology (especially North American approaches to linguistic and symbolic anthropologies) have used a number of ternary models, perhaps in direct reaction with the binary obsessions of Lévi-Strauss and other European universalists. Still caught up in glorified numerology, I guess. But usually with an even funnier twist than Lévi-Strauss’s «forme canonique».

]]>