OK, this seems better to me, especially in communication among people, but I still resist the idea that the immediate object is generally an average in any sense. My problem is trying to fit that idea into my understanding of information flow (using Barwise and Seligman’s technical approach to make sense of Dretske’s Knowledge and the Flow of Information). David Lewis’s work on the conventionality of meanings in communication does seem to require something like what you identify.
John Collier Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Clark Goble [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, 24 June 2016 8:48 PM To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being I think this notion of “true in the main” is more or less what average means relative to the immediate object. It’s not really average in the sense of mean in its strict mathematical sense. Rather it’s the distinction between what Peirce calls the coenoscopic and idioscopic senses of such terms.
----------------------------- 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 .
