If you have ever preached you will remember times when your statements are remembered by an enthusiast who repeats to you what you said, implying a meaning. Often not what you meant. I think meaning must be seen to be in the eye of the beholder with only scant (if that) reference to what was actually meant. This may be why advertisers surmise that seven or eight repetitions is needed to elicit the intended response.And why a good communicator is one who manages to overcome the disconnect more often than others. Maybe dicisigns are truths that transcend this problem, a realm of clarity within the welter of failed communications.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> wrote: > Gary F., Howard, Stephen, > > A long time ago in an introductory perception course I suggested to the > professor that the creative filling in of missing sensory information might > be better called _*restoration*_ (like that of a painting, involving > skill but without assurance of perfect accuracy), and he agreed. However, I > don't think that that covers all cases of interpretation. Generally one > would say that the meaning or implication is not 'created' but drawn out, > brought out, inferred , from something like the "hidden" state into which > Howard said (in an older post) that symbols, as encodings, put the > information that they carry. If the meaning or interpretant is arbitrarily > 'created', on the other hand, then it was never 'hidden' in the signs. > > The most 'creative' kind of interpretation seems to be at the evolutionary > scale, in the sense that the species and its special interpretive norms are > 'created' by evolution. These special norms let the vegetable-level > organism interpret, appraise, signs in the perspective of the species' > special interests, its special questions, i.e., the norms seem to add value > to the interpretants. But that value was added or created by the > evolutionary process, and the kinds of interpretant that result still need > to reflect the realities and actual and variable conditions faced by the > organism and its species - most 'creations' or mutations are for the worse. > > Best, Ben > > On 10/12/2014 8:47 AM, Gary Fuhrman wrote: > > Howard, Stephen, > > I think it would be more accurate to say that meaning is *recreated* by > the interpreting agent. In other words, the interpretant is a sign, but not > just any sign arbitrarily invented by the interpreter. In order to be > meaningful, it has to carry forward the functioning of the very sign that > it interprets, translates or transforms. > > gary f. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Howard Pattee > Sent: 12-Oct-14 8:19 AM > To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: [biosemiotics:7218] > Re: Natural > > At 07:04 AM 10/12/2014, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > lol. And who says what the meaning is? > > HP: Meaning is created by the interpreting agent. Most biosemioticians > believe that interpreting agents and life are coextensive. Certainty the > first self-replicating cell must interpret its coded symbolic instructions. > > Howard > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
