Benjamin wrote: "Verbal speech can be stored, too, in recordings (072614-1) of sounds. You will have to stretch the meaning of the word "written" to cover such recordings."
I do not have to stretch anything. "Verbal speech", like spoken words, is a dissipative structure and "recorded speech", like written words, is an equilibrium structure. Peircean scholars and philosophers in general seem to find it difficult (or trivial) to distinguish between the two categories of structures, equilibrium and dissipative, probably because most philosophies have been done with written, not spoken, words since the invention of writing. This bias for equilibrium structures over dissipative ones in the medium of communcation among philosophers may have left profound influences on the content of "written" philosophies. With all the best. Sung ___________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > 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 âNOâ on your computer >> screen. >> >> âThis distinction (between written and spoken words: my (6231-2) >> addition) like many is a binary fantasy. A needless >> distinction.â >> >> I disagree. It is not âa binary fantasyâ. It is what I would call >> âdata-drivenâ philosophy in contrast to âdata-freeâ 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 .
