Jerry, list, Yes, that is true, a change in meaning is not necessarily a change in the state of information. Peirce is clear about that in "Upon Logical Comprehension and Extension". One can find at least a couple of cases of this mentioned in the sixth section or 'paragraph', in particular his definitions of generalization and descent.
You wrote: Is this sentence an example speculative rhetoric or speculative grammar? By example, I take it that you mean, is this a proposition or claim (or observation) in the study of speculative rhetoric, or in speculative grammar? Actually, I believe this would belong to neither, but instead belong to the second branch of semiotic logic, i.e. logical critic, the branch that focuses on inference and its classifications. Speculative grammar, of course, plays a role: Peirce uses his newly-defined concepts from "On a New List" to understand information, in particular the concept of interpretant. But the outcome of the paper on information is an explanation of the three kinds of inference as represented by their role in changing information. Notice that in the paper, Peirce references his syllogistic approach to understanding induction and hypothesis in order to help make sense of the changes of information brought about by induction and hypothesis. But syllogistic is properly part of logical critic, not speculative grammar. With respect to speculative rhetoric, nothing is discussed in regard to questions of scientific method or of communication and semiotic community generally, though one would expect an understanding of information and the variety of changes it can undergo to prove of aid in the issues that speculative rhetoric treats of. You could argue that information theory belongs in speculative grammar after all, and I can see that. But my instinct is that discussing changes of anything isn't really the purview of speculative grammar. Grammar classifies signs, but it does not discuss their changing relations with each other--that's what inference and method do, and studies of inference and method properly belong to critic and methodeutic, respectively. Again, grammar contributes the needed classifications to understand what-contributes-what to information, but it shouldn't have to do with discussing changes in information. Franklin On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > List: > > On Nov 1, 2015, at 11:43 PM, Franklin Ransom <[email protected]> > wrote: > > In any case, change in distinctness is not change in information. > > > This assertion appears problematic. > > In particular, it appears to suggest that a change in meaning is not a > change in information. > > Is this sentence an example speculative rhetoric or speculative grammar? > > Cheers > > Jerry >
----------------------------- 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 .
