List, Michael: On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Michael Shapiro wrote:
> What you call "verbal superstructure" EVOLVES IN TANDEM WITH "logical > infrastructure." > There is a set of patterned relationships between these two aspects of > linguistic structure that are diagrammatic, and the telos of all language > change is toward ever-greater diagrammatization of meaning in form. Are these two sentences of greater depth than first meet the eye? In other words, can they be extended beyond the constraint of linguistics (utterances)? MY answer to both questions is a strong "YES"! My conjecture is that symbol systems grow (in number of symbols and classes of symbols) in parallel with logical infrastructure. The more symbols in the symbol system, the greater the number of possible orderings of symbols in an expression and the greater the possible number of combinations of symbols in logical expressions. More and different meanings become possible to express in propositions and conditional assertions that can be validated or invalidated. The second sentence offers a further opportunity to express meaning by associating symbols into diagrams and thereby sharpening the mental and logical image of the representamen of the message / meaning. Two representamen, but in two different symbol systems, of the same object open the representamen to multiple contexts of comparison. When the number of possible combinations of symbols becomes large and the number of relations among the symbols becomes vastly larger, it becomes impossible to hold all the parts of the whole in the mind's eye. Diagrams become essential for expressing the cohort of symbols, relations and forms. At least, the development of the symbol systems for both chemistry, electricity, and chemicals as electrical symbols are clear examples of the meaning of Michael's sentences. Anyone care to speculate about the validity of these two sentences for mathematical symbols and/or physical symbols and/or musical symbols? Thus, I believe Michael has clearly expressed and extended a critical aspect of CSP's writings that deserve to be explored further. Can Michael's sentences be supported by specific CSP textual references? 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 .
