Marccu-
I don't know whether that is what Jon meant ("our capacity for language has
nothing to do with our ability to create cognitive representations"), but
Peirce said that *everything is a Symbol/Representsmen, irrespective of
language or cognition.
That is not logic or philosophy, but an aspect of reality. Facts are costly to
obtain about an Object of interest (time, resources, analysis), and moreover an
Object has different meanings depending upon the observer's/thinker's
interests.
Therefore observers never conceive of Objects in their perfect/complete state.
Instead, Objects are viewed Pragmatically -- what about the Object is relevant
to me? The answers to that question comprise a list of Interpretants which
inform/motivate/constrain the observer's subsequent decisions/actions.
The role of language/communication is to share information about symbols with
others (usually of the same species). Cognition facilitates that (usually).
Regards,
Tom Wyrick
> On Aug 5, 2015, at 7:28 AM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Note to Managers: Marcuu's messages don't seem to be
> making it through to the list. I think they have the
> right address in the cc list. I will reply-to-all on
> this last one as a test. -- Jon
>
>
>> On 8/4/2015 11:40 PM, marccu s wrote:
>> Do you mean that our capacity for language has nothing to do with our
>> ability to create cognitive representations?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Lähetetty laitteesta Windowsin sähköposti
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Lähettäjä: Jon Awbrey
>> Lähetetty: tiistai, 4. elokuuta 2015 23:45
>> Vast.ott: Sungchul Ji
>> Kopio: Thomas, [email protected]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thread:
>> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16893
>> ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16894
>> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16895
>> MS:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16898
>> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16898
>> TW:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16900
>> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16908
>> SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/16909
>>
>> Sung, List,
>>
>> General terms are terms like "man", "woman", "child", etc.,
>> each of which applies to many individuals, in other words,
>> has a general denotation or a plural extension. Generally
>> speaking, a general term is treated as bearing an accessory
>> reference, indirect denotation, or other form of association
>> to a general property like man-ness, woman-ness, child-ness,
>> etc. and to a set of individuals like men, women, children, etc.
>> But a strict nominalist would hold that we have no need of these
>> properties or sets, that all we need are the individual terms that
>> denote individuals individually together with the general terms that
>> denote individuals in a general way.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>>> On 8/4/2015 6:20 AM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
>>> Hi Jon,
>>>
>>>
>>> * In other words, we should not confuse a general term, one that applies
>>> to many individuals, with a term that denotes a general entity, property,
>>> or universal *
>>>
>>> Can you provide one or two concrete examples illustrating the point you are
>>> making ?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> Sung
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Tom, List,
>>>>
>>>> Let me back up, refresh my memory, and try to remember what I had in mind.
>>>>
>>>> Nominalism takes its name from the idea that "generals are only names",
>>>> and it goes by the maxims: "Do not take a general name for the name of
>>>> a general" and "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity". In other
>>>> words, we should not confuse a general term, one that applies to many
>>>> individuals, with a term that denotes a general entity, property, or
>>>> universal, as those are dispensable in favor of individual entities.
>>>>
>>>> As far as the advice against confusing signs with objects and different
>>>> types or uses of signs with each other, and even the advice to economize
>>>> our budgets of entities to some degree, if not to the extreme of absolute
>>>> austerity, pragmatism can go a long ways with that. The fork in the road
>>>> comes with the degree to which general entities can be eliminated, wholly
>>>> or not so wholly.
>>>>
>>>> I will have to break for dinner here ...
>>>>
>>>> Jon
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/1/2015 11:52 AM, Thomas wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Jon, List ~
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is how I interpreted Markku's comment: Because a semiotics
>>>>> process underlies the logical thinking of people, animals and plants,
>>>>> then the logic/thoughts that are the subject of a philosopher's
>>>>> investigation/analysis are not themselves nominalistic.
>>>>> They are (intended to be) pragmatic.
>>>>>
>>>>> The nominalism label in the poem must, perforce, apply to the thinking
>>>>> of a confused philosopher. His/her analytical approach is the Object
>>>>> of "nominal" (a Sign) in the poem. The poem is a critique of (some)
>>>>> philosophers.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead of a simple verse, I sense that Peirce's preferred poetic form
>>>>> would be a limerick comprised of palindromes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, Tom Wyrick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 31, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Marccu, List,
>>>>>
>>>>> I sometimes use “nominal thinking” as another name for nominalism
>>>>> even as I use “pragmatic thinking” as another name for pragmatism.
>>>>> Now there is a punny bit of ribbing in that, as a nominal thinker
>>>>> is a “thinker in name only”, but how could a nominalist object to
>>>>> a general name without giving up the ghost of nominal philosophy?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jon
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/30/2015 5:50 PM, marccu s wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not understand how ‘thinking’ could be nominal?
>>>>>> I suppose there are not such a phenomenon as ‘nominal thinking’.
>>>>>> Misunderstanding and understanding (results of thinking) etc are
>>>>>> both based on information formation within society in relation to
>>>>>> other subjects and objects etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> kindly, markku
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lähetetty laitteesta Windowsin sähköposti
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lähettäjä: Jon Awbrey
>>>>>> Lähetetty: torstai, 30. heinäkuuta 2015 18:10
>>>>>> Vast.ott: [email protected]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Post : Zeroth Law Of Semiotics
>>>>>> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/07/30/zeroth-law-of-semiotics/
>>>>>> Date : July 30, 2015 at 10:00 am
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Peircers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New (if not exactly novel) discussions of the so-called "Liar Paradox"
>>>>>> have broken out at several places on the web in recent weeks and these
>>>>>> always bring to my mind at least a number of critical ways in which
>>>>>> the Peircean paradigm of logic as semiotics differs from the fallback
>>>>>> paradigm that bedevils the thinking of those who have yet to see by
>>>>>> Peirce's lights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that brings to my mind at least the following oldie
>>>>>> but still goodie that articulates what I take to be the
>>>>>> issue at the root of this and many other pseudo-problems.
>>>>>> (I have revised the title a bit for this edition.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Zeroth Law Of Semiotics
>>>>>> =======================
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meaning is a privilege not a right.
>>>>>> Not all pictures depict.
>>>>>> Not all signs denote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never confuse a property of a sign,
>>>>>> just for instance, existence,
>>>>>> with a sign of a property,
>>>>>> for instance, existence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Taking a property of a sign
>>>>>> for a sign of a property
>>>>>> is the zeroth sign of
>>>>>> nominal thinking
>>>>>> and the first
>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also Sprach 0*
>>>>>> 2002 October 09
>>>>>> http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=32824
>
>
> --
>
> 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 .
