Dear all, The *surprising* *fact*, (object) C, is observed (by a human);...
Best, Jerry R On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > The FACT that the content of the immediate and dynamic object are > different indeed 'makes us just humans' but I'd say that it makes us > 'humans'. That is, I'd remove the 'just' from the phrase. That means that > our cognitive capacity, our capacity to learn, to 'have knowledge' means > that we, with that capacity for reasoning and analysis, can think about > that dynamic object; can think about our immediate object - and, the three > interpretants. > > Without such a capacity, we would be unable to do anything other than > mechanically react. We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic > object or our interactions with it. > > Edwina Taborsky > -- > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Sun 26/03/17 10:22 AM , Claudio Guerri [email protected] sent: > > List, > forgive me for jumping in only very shortly > but... > I agree that that there can not be "alternative facts" > but for sure, there are only alternative interpretations. > And both concepts of immediate and dynamic object are a very clear > explanation of that difference that makes as just humans... > All the best > Claudio > > Helmut Raulien escribió el 25/03/2017 a las 20:05: > > List, > In common language the word "truth" is used for two different things: The > fact and it´s representation (the truth independent of observation, and the > truth as represented- correct representatrion). In philosophy it mostly is > only used for the representation, and means a correct representation of a > fact. > With one exception: Having looked at Wikipedia: "Truth": I would say, that > the redundancy theory uses the term for the fact, otherwise "truth" would > not be redundant (tautology, ok.). > I would say, that "truth" in the sense of the fact is semantically > redundant, because a fact is one of the things of which there can only be > one. I think, there is only one person in the world who claims that there > may be "alternative facts". > > Examples: > > "It is the truth, that Alice and Bob have married": "Truth" means the > fact, and is redundant as a term, because you might as well just say: > "Alice and Bob have married". > > "Paul told the truth when he said that Alice and Bob had married": Fact, > redundant, because to tell means to speak about. "About" is the bridge > between representation and fact, adresses the fact. The sentence can be > said like: "Alice and Bob have married, and Paul has told that". > Though the redundancy is not complete regarding the connotations: The > first version of the statement implies the suggestion, that Paul does not > always adress facts correctly (tell the truth), which the second version > does not imply. > > "Paul spoke the truth when he said that Alice and Bob had married": > representation, not redundant. The truth here is not the fact, but what > Paul spoke. > > Anyway, I guess it is very dangerous, that there are two completely > different things which may so easily be conflated and confused, because > they share the same term. Eg. the said person who claims alternative facts > is a danger. > > I guess, that language in general is somewhat blurry about the distinction > between representation and the represented. But in the case of the term > "truth" it is a major problem, leading to confusion and misconceptions, > even ideologies: Ideologies work with forged "facts", and are only able to > do so, because the term "truth" is not clear. If there were two words for > the two things (representation and represented), then it would be much more > difficult to establish myths and conspiracy theories, which both are > necessary for ideologies. > > I had thought about proposing to call the two types of "truth" dynamical > and immediate truth, but this is confusing, I guess, because a dynamical > object may be an immediate truth. Or "trueness" and "truth"? I dont know. > > Best, > helmut > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
