* Re: "schizophrenic" reference
@ 2010-10-28 18:08 Fred E.J. Linton
2010-10-29 2:34 ` Tom Leinster
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Fred E.J. Linton @ 2010-10-28 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Prof. Peter Johnstone; +Cc: categories
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:14:24 AM EDT Prof. Peter Johnstone
<P.T.Johnstone@dpmms.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> ... I don't claim credit (if that's the right word) for
> introducing this use of "schizophrenic". I got it from ...
I wasn't aiming for an attribution of credit -- only for
a citation of use of the term in the accessible literature.
Certainly I have, over the years, heard at least Isbell and
Lawvere -- and others -- refer to schizophrenic objects,
schizoid objects, objects with "split" -- or "multiple", or
"more than one" -- personality, and the like.
How far back, "over the years"? -- Probably at least to the
early 'seventies, quite possibly earlier.
Cheers, -- Fred
[For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "schizophrenic" reference 2010-10-28 18:08 "schizophrenic" reference Fred E.J. Linton @ 2010-10-29 2:34 ` Tom Leinster [not found] ` <C4329BBD-876C-43D0-AB53-DB2E92603E7F@kestrel.edu> 2010-10-31 10:40 ` Vaughan Pratt 0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Tom Leinster @ 2010-10-29 2:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: categories I'm afraid I say this every time "schizophrenic" objects come up, but here I go again... Let's not use that word. To quote the Guardian style guide (http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/s): schizophrenia, schizophrenic use only in a medical context, never to mean "in two minds", contradictory, or erratic, which is wrong, as well as offensive to people diagnosed with this illness. There is a concise summary of the history and terminology at http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/dualizing+object which also links to a discussion of alternatives. "Dualizing object" and "ambimorphic object" are both used. Best wishes, Tom On Thu, 28 Oct 2010, Fred E.J. Linton wrote: > On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 05:14:24 AM EDT Prof. Peter Johnstone > <P.T.Johnstone@dpmms.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> ... I don't claim credit (if that's the right word) for >> introducing this use of "schizophrenic". I got it from ... > > I wasn't aiming for an attribution of credit -- only for > a citation of use of the term in the accessible literature. > > Certainly I have, over the years, heard at least Isbell and > Lawvere -- and others -- refer to schizophrenic objects, > schizoid objects, objects with "split" -- or "multiple", or > "more than one" -- personality, and the like. > > How far back, "over the years"? -- Probably at least to the > early 'seventies, quite possibly earlier. > > Cheers, -- Fred > > > > [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] > [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <C4329BBD-876C-43D0-AB53-DB2E92603E7F@kestrel.edu>]
* Re: "schizophrenic" reference [not found] ` <C4329BBD-876C-43D0-AB53-DB2E92603E7F@kestrel.edu> @ 2010-10-31 8:21 ` Dusko Pavlovic 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Dusko Pavlovic @ 2010-10-31 8:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: categories people, can we please please please stop with these evil schizophrenic dogmatic discussions about terminology? i have been on this list for 20 years, and there were good times, and there were less good times, but i was never really tempted to start filtering it out. in the middle of the discussion about evil, and about the religious conotations pointed out by jean benabou, a lurking student asked me: why is it that category theorists have no sense of humor? i said all scientists are a little serious, but she came at me with a collection of recent terminology from chemistry: > moronic acid, arsole, bastardin and bastardane, gossypole, buckminster > fullerene... all of it in refereed publications. people enjoy themselves creating new molecules and then creating names the for them. in physics they have MACHOs and WIMPs. they have the big bang. if we want to attract more students, maybe we should use names like big bang, and like pullback, and not like l-adic p-groups, or even galoisian cohomology (especially since galois was dead <150 years when his cohomology came about...) when i say "i had a schizophrenic morning", it does not mean that my morning has seen a psychiatrist, or even that it was split in two. when i say "i had 3000 things to do", it doesn't mean that i counted. some people would prefer to say "i had many things to do". these two statements express the same fact, but they also express different speakers. the difference between such expressions is called social life. some people say that words should have a clear meaning, and that conotations (religious, moral, ironic) should be avoided. but words *always* accumulate connotations, entire mythologies, as roland barthes explained. this cannot be decreed away. the standardized, official, unambiguous expressions do not express only their standard meanings, but also the adherence to the social context in which they were standardized. the argument for standard unambiguous terminologies is usually that the public would get confused with multiple terms. the rules to be obeyed are almost always prescribed for the social benefit, and almost never to assert authority. when i was a child in yugoslavia, you could never say communism, you had to say socialism, because the difference might confuse the public. mathematical notations can be good or bad, and great mathematicians often design great notations. but natural language is a living organism. words evolve. in contrast with the mathematical notations, words do not obey intelligent design, no matter how intelligent we are... (sorry about the long rant.) if anyone is interested, i think we should form A Categorical Liberation Union to defend our terminology from moral and religious influences. -- dusko > From: Tom Leinster <Tom.Leinster@glasgow.ac.uk> > Date: October 29, 2010 4:34:21 AM GMT+02:00 > To: <categories@mta.ca> > Subject: categories: Re: "schizophrenic" reference > Reply-To: Tom Leinster <Tom.Leinster@glasgow.ac.uk> > > > I'm afraid I say this every time "schizophrenic" objects come up, but here > I go again... > > Let's not use that word. > > To quote the Guardian style guide (http://www.guardian.co.uk/styleguide/s): > > schizophrenia, schizophrenic > > use only in a medical context, never to mean "in two minds", > contradictory, or erratic, which is wrong, as well as offensive to > people diagnosed with this illness. > > There is a concise summary of the history and terminology at > > http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/dualizing+object > > which also links to a discussion of alternatives. "Dualizing object" and > "ambimorphic object" are both used. > > Best wishes, > Tom [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "schizophrenic" reference 2010-10-29 2:34 ` Tom Leinster [not found] ` <C4329BBD-876C-43D0-AB53-DB2E92603E7F@kestrel.edu> @ 2010-10-31 10:40 ` Vaughan Pratt 1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Vaughan Pratt @ 2010-10-31 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: categories On 10/28/2010 7:34 PM, Tom Leinster wrote: > > I'm afraid I say this every time "schizophrenic" objects come up, but here > I go again... > > Let's not use that word. I have to agree with Tom here because to deny this would offend those upset by Holocaust deniers (which we all should be upset by). This comes up repeatedly in the politics of global warming, where people complain on that basis about the use of the term "climate denier." Sensitivity is chopping holes in the English language the way mad cow disease chops holes in the brain, obliging us to replace "he" by "he or she" (awkward) or "they" (ungrammatical), maintain an up-to-the-minute lexicon of who's allowed to call which groups by what names, keep track of which punishments are meted out to which groups for insulting which icons, and so on. I'm not saying sensitivity should or shouldn't do this, I'm just pointing out that it's happening. Nature does not judge BSE as good or bad, however badly done by its victims might feel. This might not be the best time to advertise my paper "Communes via Yoneda, from an Elementary Perspective," Fundamenta Informaticae 123 (2010) 1–16, DOI 10.3233/FI-2010-315, which (at long last) is the journal version of my CT'04 talk in Vancouver. That's because I speak there about "the schizophrenic mind-body nature of Lewis's qualia" which I explicate in terms of the dual nature of the elements of the dualizing object and the states (functionals, open sets, dual points, intensive quantities) of the tensor unit as the dual of the dualizing object in *-autonomous categories, and the generalization thereof via profunctors to commune categories. The "schizophrenia" is analyzed in terms of the two kinds of entities belonging to the same homsets. All rubbish of course, but hopefully to emerge from that status at some point. Vaughan [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <20101101135231.CF3035C25C@chase.mathstat.dal.ca>]
* Re: "schizophrenic" reference [not found] <20101101135231.CF3035C25C@chase.mathstat.dal.ca> @ 2010-11-01 20:37 ` Dusko Pavlovic 2010-11-03 2:56 ` Tom Leinster 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Dusko Pavlovic @ 2010-11-01 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: categories; +Cc: Peter Selinger, Tom.Leinster peter selinger tells me that i viciously attacked tom leinster. i would like to apologize for that appearance. i do not know tom, and had no intention to address his post more than any of the previous 200 posts about terminology. tom's was just the one where i blew up. i am sorry, tom. and i guess maybe i should say sorry to all that i blew up. but i still think that it is a pity, and curious, that the best minds of category theory don't have better things to do but to generate volumes of email about words. before i disappear, let me add two things. 1) the meanings of words evolve away from their origins, just like bat's wings and seal's flippers evolved away from their ancestors' legs. the original meaning of the word "word" was "promise". but people are ignorant, and the meaning changed. if people start using the word "schizophrenic" to describe a type of shoes, or a sexual orientation --- that will in due time become the meaning of that word. that is how languages work, if you don't mind. 2) proscribing some words for reasons of political correctness is often patronizing. let us protect the weak by using the name of their weakness only very very carefully, and with a serious face. because we are stronger, so we should protect them. (and also use the opportunity to tell everyone else what to do.) once upon a time, black people used to be called the n word by some white people. and what did black people do? yes, they wrote many petitions to guardian pleading for good style and political correctness. but since that somehow didn't work, they took the offending word and made it into their own authentication token. they made music from it. and the white people from whom the n word originated were left wordless. please lets make category theory and let language live its life. -- dusko [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "schizophrenic" reference 2010-11-01 20:37 ` Dusko Pavlovic @ 2010-11-03 2:56 ` Tom Leinster 2010-11-03 16:24 ` edubuc 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Tom Leinster @ 2010-11-03 2:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: categories On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Dusko Pavlovic wrote: > tom's was just the one where i blew up. i am sorry, tom. No problem. I understand that posts about terminology get tedious, but I do actually think this matters. Mental health organizations constantly have to fight misconceptions about mental illness. Those misconceptions can do real harm to those who are ill. Schizophrenia as "split personality" is one of them. For example, Mind, a well-known British mental health charity, says: There is more media misinformation about schizophrenia than about any other psychiatric diagnosis. It's not true that schizophrenia means 'split personality' Many websites on mental health contain statements along similar lines; a few links are below. We have the freedom to choose any term we like for the mathematical concept. We can do a small good thing by not choosing a term that perpetuates a damaging myth about a serious psychiatric disorder. Best wishes, Tom Links: http://www.mind.org.uk/help/diagnoses_and_conditions/schizophrenia#danger http://helpguide.org/mental/schizophrenia_symptom.htm http://healthmad.com/mental-health/seven-myths-and-misconceptions-about-schizophrenia/ http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_6112881_common-misconceptions-schizophrenia.html http://overcomingschizophrenia.blogspot.com/2008/09/common-misconceptions-about.html [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "schizophrenic" reference 2010-11-03 2:56 ` Tom Leinster @ 2010-11-03 16:24 ` edubuc 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: edubuc @ 2010-11-03 16:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tom Leinster; +Cc: categories Concerning terminology one more opinion exemplified by this example: I think that it is a VERY BAD HABIT to attach a mathematical meaning to words that have a comun use in every-day language, which come together with all sorts of connotations. Like "schizofrenic". Somebody proposed "schimatic", and I find this a good choice: 1) it is erudite and etimologically justified 2) it sounds right 3) (and more important). It is not a word known in everyday language. For example, I did not know it (neither in spanish, english or french). So, when I would see "schimatic" in a math text, I would say "what the hell does it mean ?", and look at the mathematical definition. Then I will know, and "schimatic" will have attached from now on only its mathematical meaning. I suggest that when in need of a word for a mathematical concept, to look at the LATIN language, which is a DEAD language, so no problems. And furthermore, it has a long tradition for scientific names. (and plurals "topoi" for example ja! sorry Peter) e.d. Tom Leinster wrote: > On Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Dusko Pavlovic wrote: > >> tom's was just the one where i blew up. i am sorry, tom. > > No problem. > > I understand that posts about terminology get tedious, but I do actually > think this matters. Mental health organizations constantly have to fight > misconceptions about mental illness. Those misconceptions can do real > harm to those who are ill. Schizophrenia as "split personality" is > one of > them. For example, Mind, a well-known British mental health charity, > says: > > There is more media misinformation about schizophrenia than about any > other psychiatric diagnosis. It's not true that schizophrenia means > 'split personality' > > Many websites on mental health contain statements along similar lines; a > few links are below. > > We have the freedom to choose any term we like for the mathematical > concept. We can do a small good thing by not choosing a term that > perpetuates a damaging myth about a serious psychiatric disorder. > > Best wishes, > Tom > > Links: > http://www.mind.org.uk/help/diagnoses_and_conditions/schizophrenia#danger > http://helpguide.org/mental/schizophrenia_symptom.htm > http://healthmad.com/mental-health/seven-myths-and-misconceptions-about-schizophrenia/ > > http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_6112881_common-misconceptions-schizophrenia.html > > http://overcomingschizophrenia.blogspot.com/2008/09/common-misconceptions-about.html > [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* "schizophrenic" reference @ 2010-10-27 10:21 Fred E.J. Linton 2010-10-28 9:13 ` Prof. Peter Johnstone 0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread From: Fred E.J. Linton @ 2010-10-27 10:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: categories At the Halifax Octoberfest just ended, I had mistakenly, in a private conversation, suggested looking in or near Chapter 4 section 5 of PTJ's Stone Spaces for occurrence of the word "schizophrenic." I regret that error. Better places to look might be page 268 of that book, or passim on pages 254-262, and thereabouts. Grosso modo: not Chapter 4 section 5, but Chapter 6 section 4. Cheers, -- Fred [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: "schizophrenic" reference 2010-10-27 10:21 Fred E.J. Linton @ 2010-10-28 9:13 ` Prof. Peter Johnstone 0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread From: Prof. Peter Johnstone @ 2010-10-28 9:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fred E.J. Linton; +Cc: categories I don't claim credit (if that's the right word) for introducing this use of "schizophrenic". I got it from an early draft of Harold Simmons's paper "A couple of triples" -- though Harold changed his terminology before the published version appeared (Topology Appl. 13, 1982). In "Sheaves in Geometry and Logic" (p. 280), Mac Lane and Moerdijk credit John Isbell with having introduced the term, but I don't know of any publication where John used it. Peter Johnstone On Wed, 27 Oct 2010, Fred E.J. Linton wrote: > At the Halifax Octoberfest just ended, I had mistakenly, > in a private conversation, suggested looking in or near > Chapter 4 section 5 of PTJ's Stone Spaces for occurrence > of the word "schizophrenic." I regret that error. > Better places to look might be page 268 of that book, > or passim on pages 254-262, and thereabouts. Grosso modo: > not Chapter 4 section 5, but Chapter 6 section 4. > > Cheers, -- Fred > > > > [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] > [For admin and other information see: http://www.mta.ca/~cat-dist/ ] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-11-03 16:24 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-10-28 18:08 "schizophrenic" reference Fred E.J. Linton 2010-10-29 2:34 ` Tom Leinster [not found] ` <C4329BBD-876C-43D0-AB53-DB2E92603E7F@kestrel.edu> 2010-10-31 8:21 ` Dusko Pavlovic 2010-10-31 10:40 ` Vaughan Pratt [not found] <20101101135231.CF3035C25C@chase.mathstat.dal.ca> 2010-11-01 20:37 ` Dusko Pavlovic 2010-11-03 2:56 ` Tom Leinster 2010-11-03 16:24 ` edubuc -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2010-10-27 10:21 Fred E.J. Linton 2010-10-28 9:13 ` Prof. Peter Johnstone
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).