Jon, List,
I see the difference between descriptive and normative semiotics. Mathematics for instance is a normative science. But "normative" I think does not mean, that it divides nature into two fields: the reasonable field and the extra-norm field. I think, normativity rather should mean, that it is applicable for the whole nature, including dadaist poetry. What would a norm be good for, if we had the free choice to obey it or not? That would not be a norm, but an arbitrary rule- and the laws of mathematics are not arbitrary rules, I think. Maybe the free associations and personal connotations that pass through a given interpreters head are chaotic- but chaos theory can cope with that, cant it? Or is there really something like nondeterministic chaos (eg. in poetry and language)??
Best regards,
Helmut
Helmut, List,
Descriptive semiotics is always available for describing whatever
manner of free associations and personal connotations might chance
to pass through a given interpreter's head or external expressions,
but logic conceived as normative semiotics is an inquiry oriented
toward more focal aims.
Regards,
Jon
On 2/12/2015 6:15 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Jon, List,
> I was thinking of comparing the sentence "C thanks A for B" with a square root:
> The square root of a positive number has either a positive or a negative result
> (or is it both?). And, that C is thankful is also only one possibility of
> result: C might also not like B and reject it, or might not care and not react.
> Ok, this is not a proper comparison, because the square root delivers only two
> exact results, and Cs possible feelings about being given a B are on a gradual
> scale. So I guess, that in poetry and language there is logic too, but a fuzzy
> logic. When a poet tries to produce something nonlogical, eg. in Dadaism, is
> this really "extra-logical", or just very very fuzzy? I mean, can there be
> something unique extra-logical at all?
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
Descriptive semiotics is always available for describing whatever
manner of free associations and personal connotations might chance
to pass through a given interpreter's head or external expressions,
but logic conceived as normative semiotics is an inquiry oriented
toward more focal aims.
Regards,
Jon
On 2/12/2015 6:15 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Jon, List,
> I was thinking of comparing the sentence "C thanks A for B" with a square root:
> The square root of a positive number has either a positive or a negative result
> (or is it both?). And, that C is thankful is also only one possibility of
> result: C might also not like B and reject it, or might not care and not react.
> Ok, this is not a proper comparison, because the square root delivers only two
> exact results, and Cs possible feelings about being given a B are on a gradual
> scale. So I guess, that in poetry and language there is logic too, but a fuzzy
> logic. When a poet tries to produce something nonlogical, eg. in Dadaism, is
> this really "extra-logical", or just very very fuzzy? I mean, can there be
> something unique extra-logical at all?
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
