Sung, list,
If you want to take the word "written" so literally, then consider the
writing of an authorized signature on a contract or on legislation. Now,
you may say that the system of the individual writing-event is a
dissipative system, as opposed to the signature standing written.
But having to make such a finicky distinction shows that your
spoken-written distinction has only an affinity with the
dissipative-nondissipative distinction and is not an unequivocal
instance of it.
You'll have to go on being finicky in order to distinguish between the
signed legislation (at this point one hopes you'll allow the printed and
the written to form a single class) and its being copied, its being
read, its being remembered via the shaping and maintaining of habits, etc.
Verbal speech can be stored, too, in recordings of sounds. You will have
to stretch the meaning of the word "written" to cover such recordings.
Yet, let's say that it's indeed a kind of "written" or "printed" form.
More generally, we would call it "stored." You're reaching for the
distinction between that which is stored and that which is exerted or
freed. The written is more easily stored than the spoken. There's the
affinity of the written with the non-dissipative. The saying "The pen is
mightier than the sword" persists for reasons.
Best, Ben
On 7/26/2014 2:39 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
Stephen wrote (6231-1) and (6231-2):
"Your written word just conveyed energy to my (6231-1)
fingers to say NO."
I did not write any words on a piece of paper (which would have been an
example of equilibrium structure, since no energy would have been required
for them to exist on a piece of paper).
The words that appeared on your computer screen (when you read my email)
are dissipative structures, since they would have disappeared if your
computer ran out of energy. As dissipative structures, my words on your
computer screen can do work, like stimulating the retina of our eye
generating nerve impulses which travel to your visual cortex and thence
eventually to the muscle cells in your fingers that produced motions on
the keyboard resulting in the visual image “NO” on your computer screen.
“This distinction (between written and spoken words: my (6231-2)
addition) like many is a binary fantasy. A needless
distinction.”
I disagree. It is not “a binary fantasy”. It is what I would call
“data-driven“ philosophy in contrast to “data-free” or "data-independent"
philosophy, as exemplified in your Statements (6321-1) and (6321-2).
With all the best.
Sung
Am I believing my eyes? Your written word just conveyed energy to my
fingers to say NO. This distinction like many is a binary fantasy. A
needless distinction. Words written and spoken are the transitional stage
between signs and our indexing of them as signs move toward expression and
action. They are what we use to limit and make manageable the vague and
extensive aspects of signs and enable some consideration of them. All
words
limit. All words are subject to being understood not as they are intended
to be understood but as the hearer or reader perceives them. Between what
one says and what one writes there is only a difference of means. It is
also the case that when we are hearing or reading words stimulate the
creation of signs within us which we name with ... more words.
You wrote:
Thus, we can recognize two classes of "words" --- (i) written words
belonging to ES, and (ii) spoken words belonging to DS. Written words
cannot perform any work since they do not have any energy.
Again, no.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote:
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
