Dear Ben,
Thanks for your comments and my responses to some of them follow:
> Sung, you wrote to Stephen,
>
> [QUOTE]
> "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"Â on your computer screen.
> [END QUOTE]
>
> Sung, you're saying that words on a computer screen can do work on
> Stephen but words written on a paper sign can't do work on Stephen - as
> if seeing "Mr. Rose, you have won a million dollars" on computer screen
> at a state.gov website would have an effect on him but seeing it in a
> notarized letter to him from a state lottery would not.
I agree that words on a computer screen and those written on a paper will
have the same effect on a lottery winner but I am not talking about the
semiotics of words but their physics. As I pointed out before, an
artificial flower (or words on a paper) and a real flower (or words spoken
or appearing on a computer screen) can be indistinguishable semiotically
or morphologically but are distinct physically the former is an
equilibrium structure and the latter is a dissipative structure.
Conflating these two types of structures can be deadly to philosophy as it
is to birds. Let me explain what I mean:
According to a Korean legend, there was a Buddhist monk named Sohl-Guh
during the Silla Dynasty (that flourished between 57 BC and 935 AD in the
south western part of the Korean Peninsula) who painted an old pine tree
on a temple wall which looked so real that many birds flew into it only to
meet their unfortunate death. For convenience of discussion, let me refer
to this tragic story as the Sohl-Guhs pine tree and birds (SPB). I
claim that
Philosophers not distinguishing between equilibrium and
(073014-1)
dissipative structures may be akin to Sohl-Guhs birds.
In the Peircean semiotic terms, such philosophers may be characterized as
those who do not distinguish between artificial flowers (or models) and
the real flowers (or reality) that they represent, thus ending up
believing that artificial flowers and real flowers are the same like
Sohl-Guhs birds.
>Then you
> complain that philosophers don't understand physicists. I doubt that
> many physicists would endorse your view of the physical effects of
> words. Some might ask you for your physical definition of _/word/_.
>
My physical definition of /word/ is that it is an organized pattern of
matter whose existence is either independent of energy dissipation (e.g.,
ink particles on a piece of paper) or dependent on it (e.g., organized
pixels on a computer screen, or air particles undergoing coordinated
vibrations).
> The big difference to you seems to be whether the word comes to Stephen
> by variations in illumination by the screen or by variations introduced
> by the inscribed paper into the light that the paper reflects. To you
> the computer screen's word IS those variations in illumination, but the
> paper's word is NOT the variations in reflected light.
You got my idea almost correctly but not quite completely. Yes, I think
the computer screens word is variations of illumination, since without
them, Stephen would not have seen the word, but papers word is NOT the
variations in reflected light because it can exist with light, although
Stephen would not be able to read it without papers word. Again, I am
finding it very interesting that we can distinguish between the physics of
words themselves and their semiotic consequences, which may be related to
the distinction between medium and content in linguistics (?).
>But usually when
> philosophers and everyday people speak of the written word, they do not
> mean simply patterns of ink or pencil lead, but the system involving
> their being potentially or actually read. This is why I said that the
> spoken/written distinction has an affinity with the dissipative/equilibrium
> distinction but is not a straightforward instance of it.
>
I agree. The spoken/written distinction has an affinity with the
dissipative/equilibrium distinction PHYSICALLY but not SEMIOTICALY.
> The effect of the computer-screen word and the paper-sign word on Steven
> may be quite the same. The nature of the effect would depend more on
> what word, with what credibility, etc.
Yes. We all know that the semiotic effect of words is more or less
independent of their physics, e.g., the word love can be written in many
different media without losing its core meaning ink, sand, pebbles,
apples, etc.
>That is why I switched to talking
> about the event of reading, and the like, in order to try to save some
> sense from the things that you said. The system involving a person's
> reading a word on a computer-screen and the system involving a person's
> reading a word on paper are both of them dissipative systems, while the
> word's computer-screen display is dissipative and the word's on-paper
> display is not.
>
Yes. As long as we focus on the semiotics of word, we have no
disagreement, reading being one example of that. But our disagreement
seems to arise due to our different emphasis placed on the philosophical
significance of the physics of words themselves. You and Clark, perhaps
representing the views of most Peirceans scholars, seem to think that the
physics of words is not that significant in discussing semiotics, whereas
I think it is.
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, you wrote to Stephen,
>
> [QUOTE]
> "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"Â on your computer screen.
> [END QUOTE]
>
> Sung, you're saying that words on a computer screen can do work on
> Stephen but words written on a paper sign can't do work on Stephen - as
> if seeing "Mr. Rose, you have won a million dollars" on computer screen
> at a state .gov website would have an effect on him but seeing it in a
> notarized letter to him from a state lottery would not. Then you
> complain that philosophers don't understand physicists. I doubt that
> many physicists would endorse your view of the physical effects of
> words. Some might ask you for your physical definition of _/word/_.
>
> The big difference to you seems to be whether the word comes to Stephen
> by variations in illumination by the screen or by variations introduced
> by the inscribed paper into the light that the paper reflects. To you
> the computer screen's word IS those variations in illumination, but the
> paper's word is NOT the variations in reflected light. But usually when
> philosophers and everyday people speak of the written word, they do not
> mean simply patterns of ink or pencil lead, but the system involving
> their being potentially or actually read. This is why I said that the
> spoken/written distinction has an affinity with the
> dissipative/equilibrium distinction but is not a straightforward
> instance of it.
>
> The effect of the computer-screen word and the paper-sign word on Steven
> may be quite the same. The nature of the effect would depend more on
> what word, with what credibility, etc. That is why I switched to talking
> about the event of reading, and the like, in order to try to save some
> sense from the things that you said. The system involving a person's
> reading a word on a computer-screen and the system involving a person's
> reading a word on paper are both of them dissipative systems, while the
> word's computer-screen display is dissipative and the word's on-paper
> display is not.
>
> Best, Ben
>
> On 7/26/2014 9:28 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
>
>> 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 ââ¬ÅNOââ¬Â on your
>>>> computer
>>>> screen.
>>>>
>>>> ââ¬ÅThis distinction (between written and spoken words: my
>>>> (6231-2)
>>>> addition) like many is a binary fantasy. A needless
>>>> distinction.ââ¬Â
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. It is not ââ¬Åa binary fantasyââ¬Â. It is what I
>>>> would call
>>>> ââ¬Ådata-drivenââ¬Å philosophy in contrast to
>>>> ââ¬Ådata-freeââ¬Â 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 .
