> On Oct 14, 2014, at 1:21 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > An important point. For now I would only add, perhaps anticipating what is to > come in Chapter 6, that we should recall that Peirce says somewhere that the > utterer or interpreter need not be a person, but that 'nature' itself might > be said to make utterances and interpretations.
One thing I’ve sometimes struggled with but that it’s important to keep clear is to not confuse the logical analysis of such things with what one might call a causal chain or an analysis of meaning. All three are very different sorts of analysis although in some cases they can overlap. Also our discussion of virtual interpretants and the like from a few weeks ago is important to keep in mind here. Something else to keep in mind is how the code (using Eco’s term) or context stands in relation to the objects that are making interpretants. This is one of those things that seems obvious. I think we usually skip over this step when considering a lot of interpretations. Yet especially for natural signs thinking about it can be quite helpful. We (or at least I) tend to think through signs using a simple language model to understand what’s going on. When we move more broadly away from copula/proposition signs to dicisigns that are not linguistical I think we need to be very careful so we don’t miss the functions at play. I tend not to focus on biology, although I’m a little familiar with chemistry and simple microbiology. But I’d imagine figuring out the application for all this in biology might be a tad trickier than it appears at first glance. (I’ll let those better informed on such matters than I chime in as I’m very interested in hearing their concerns here) > In truth, while the connection of the relational structure which Peirce calls > the "continuous predicate" to the Nota Notae has been discussed in the past > on this list, I remain a bit unclear yet how "the idea that identity, > co-existence, and relation " as "continuous predicates" provide "the deepest > key to logical form" (89). Perhaps a better working knowledge of Existential > Graphs would help me here. I’m not sure myself. I’ve always assumed a kind of fractal reality to Peirce’s signs. That’s not continuity the way some consider it, but does suggest that any sign can itself be analysis as composed of numerous other signs. Even at the molecular level you have to worry about movement through space, electromagnetic interactions and so forth. And those can themselves be broken down into Feynman diagrams, which can themselves be considered as an infinite integration of paths (even if in practice you just use the first few orders of terms). All that suggests that ones logical analysis is always a simplification and that the signs are themselves always more complex due to continuity. That is there’s never a norma semioticl atomism (unless one perhaps considers a more Leibnizean conception of infinity) As to how that helps on a practical level with logical form I can’t imagine, beyond imagining that each line of an existential graph is itself open to analysis.
----------------------------- 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 .
