Clark,
Your wrote:
CG: Logically that then has a beginning and end to the symbol.
Definitely not so acccording to the logic of CSP. - You are using some
other kind of logic, according to which symbols do not grow - on the
ground of communities, not just by individuals.
You seem to be blocked by (late) modern individualism. Human individuals
do not just (clinically) die, they leave a legacy. At lest to those
near and dear.
Some of us leave writings. The writings of CSP I have always found dear
and near to me. - From the moment I first lied my eye on them....
Kirsti
Clark Goble kirjoitti 17.1.2017 00:54:
On Jan 16, 2017, at 2:56 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
I don't believe that it's possible or desirable to put any limits on
the way symbols grow. Any attempt would "block the way of inquiry."
One should distinguish between epistemological limits - that is
artificial bounds cutting off inquiry - and limits from truth or
speculative ontological limits. For instance while we may figuratively
characterize a series of tone as ‘blue’ it seems that conceptually
we can still make a distinction between sound and color that is a
limit on the symbol. I think we can make such distinctions without
cutting off inquiry. Indeed we make such symbolic distinctions all the
time.
1. The vocabulary of every natural language is limited by the need
for every generation of infants with no prior experience and
a limited attention span to learn the structure and a basic
vocabulary.
2. But continuity implies that no finite vocabulary can adequately
name and describe everything anyone might encounter during a
lifetime (or even a day).
3. Therefore, the basic vocabulary a child learns must be extensible
in an unlimited number of ways.
4. For any theory in mathematics or science, it's important to have
precise definitions. But those definitions are limited to the
theory for which they have been defined.
5. No theory of science remains fixed for very long. And scientists
usually keep the old vocabulary, but redefine the words as new
phenomena and ways of explaining them are discovered.
6. For examples, just think of the way Newton's vocabulary has been
redefined in the 20th century.
I don’t dispute any of those points and indeed take them for
granted. But again we might talk about the language of an infant in
its development into an adult and then death. Logically that then has
a beginning and end to the symbol. Now it’s true we can take the
symbol in other directions to the degree it is shared and has to be
available in multiple contexts _independent of the context the utterer
finds themselves in_. In that sense any linguistic or quasi-linguistic
symbol is eternal and unbound. If that’s what you mean again I fully
agree. I’d just say that we should be careful to recognize not all
symbols are those types of symbols.
It’s at this point of course that say people speaking of formal
symbolic symbols get most upset at what they see as postmodern
appropriation. So around the time of the Sokal controversy you had
people talking about the sexual connotations of imaginary numbers. To
those doing formal mathematics of course that’s complete nonsense.
If the symbols aren’t kept in that context though then of course
they, as with any symbol, can have new connotations as they appear in
different contexts. I think all I’m saying is that Peirce can
account for both processes of symbolic growth _and_ how we can keep
them separate.
Effectively the question of symbolic growth and its limits becomes the
question of whether we can speak of a limited set of contexts. If we
can’t, then of course many of the criticisms of postmodernism hold.
If we can then we can apply the set-centric conceptions to symbols
that I mentioned.
My own position is that of course connotations can go wild and symbols
grow in these unwanted ways. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk of
more limited symbolic generals from a logical perspective. (This is
where I part ways with some of say Derrida’s more unbridled fans in
English departments)
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
