Jerry - I wonder if we are speculating beyond the analytic outline...That is,
I, myself, do not agree that the logical infrastructure of the human mind has
'evolved' as a species. We are no more logical now than we were 1,000 years
ago. We certainly have developed our knowledge base in far more depth and
complexity, but that doesn't mean that we are, as a species, more logical. That
is, to me, the logical infrastructure, i.e., the syllogistic capacity to 'be
logical' hasn't evolved. The superstructure of knowledge depth and complexity
has increased...I don't know if I would even use the term 'evolved' for that.
The number and classes of symbols - and by 'symbol' I presume you mean the
arbitrary assignment of a meaning to the Relation between Representamen and
Object - can certainly increase. But I wonder if there is a limit to our
practical use of this increase.
Same with diagrams or 'graphic thinking'. Are we more capable as a species of
such abstract outlines? I'm not convinced that we have 'advanced' our capacity
for such. We have certainly increased our 'knowledge base' of diagrammatics -
esp. in mathematics - but, I'm not convinced of the cognitive evolution of our
species - which would be articulated in language.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Jerry LR Chandler
To: CSP
Cc: Michael Shapiro
Sent: Saturday, November 28, 2015 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] material relevant to Peircean linguistics
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
