Mein lieber Helmut, List,
again answer between the lines with >>>
(this was taught to me by T.A.Sebeok just at the beginning of e-mails)
Helmut Raulien escribió el 27/03/2017 a las 13:14:
Claudio, List,
So it is a bit paradoxical: On one hand we should be aware, that we
are carrot-chasing donkeys, on the other hand we should not abandon
the carrot chasing projects, inquiry. And we must respect other
donkeys who are chasing different carrots.
>>> EXACTLY!!! with no offense to donkeys and carrots...
and with no offense to thousands of years of inquiery in which all
scholars where traying to chase the DO-carrot.
And, for not thinking that there are alternative carrots, we should
believe that there is only one carrot of each kind, that is to say too
that the carrots exist.
Best,
Helmut
>>> I could agree with this, if you say "one carrot of each kind" but
only for not more than 5 minutes...
Let as hope that we are able to THINK seriously.
All the best
Dein
CLaudio
27. März 2017 um 14:11 Uhr
"Claudio Guerri" <[email protected]>
Edwina, Helmut, List,
I think that a very good aspect of Peirce's proposal is that there is
no 'THE TRUTH' anymore.
Signs can only construct other signs (images, texts, speeches,etc.),
perhaps, sometimes, "a more developed sign" (CP 2.228).
But never a definitive 'final explanation'... and this is very good
for us: humans!!!
So, there is no sense for 'religious' fights, because everything is
only a little aspect a bigger whole, which can be considered the
'Dynamic Object'.
We don't need to "achieve a true representation of a fact", because it
IS "changing all the time".
It is enough if we can figure out a good explanation for our time,
hoping that we will enlarge the concept tomorrow.
Art, Architecture, Design in general is only possible because of that
fact: we can only construct an Immediate Object, one after an other...
endlessly...
and that is exactly the chance to exist, and to be artists,
architects, designers, composers, poets, etc., etc...
if the inquiry don't need anymore to be endless... then, we will be
also definitively out of work.
To Edwina: "We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic
object or our interactions with it." (quote)
You will probably agree that we can only change the Immediate Object
we can never grasp anything of the Dynamic Object without transforming
it at the same time in an Immediate Object
the Dynamic Object is like "the carrot in front of the donkey" (I
don't know if this is also an English expression), we will never reach
it... happily...
All the best
Claudio
Helmut Raulien escribió el 26/03/2017 a las 15:12:
Claudio, Edwina, List,
I wonder whether the two kinds of truth are exactly the same as
the two kinds of object. When two people talk about a common
concept of a fact, then the dynamical object is the common concept
as it exists outside of the talk (the sign). But this dynamical
object is not the truth-as-the-fact. Though it is the
truth-as-another-fact: The fact that the common concept exists and
is like it is.
The common-concept-as-a-fact changes, even due to this one sign.
So it is hard to achieve a true representation of a fact which is
changing all the time. I guess, that the only facts or dynamical
objects that donot change, are metaphysical laws, like axioms, or
deductions that have these axioms for premisses.
That is why I doubt the theory by Peirce, that truth or a final
interpretant can always be achieved or even just approached by
(perhaps even endless) inquiry: It is like a crawling lizard
hunting a leaping frog.
Besides changing facts, and metaphysical (eternal) facts, there is
a third kind of fact: A fact that is an event-as-it-has-happened,
or something that has been in a certain state in the past.
I think, that also this kind of truth cannot always be achieved by
endless inquiry, because there might be information missing due to
non-complete documentation.
So I guess, that Peirces truth theory about endless inquiry merely
applies to metaphysical facts.
Or when the inquiry goes much faster than the change of fact, or
when the documentation is complete...
Best,
Helmut
26. März 2017 um 16:48 Uhr
"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 .
--
*Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri*
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270
1427 BUENOS AIRES
Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895
Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123
E-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
--
*Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri*
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270
1427 BUENOS AIRES
Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895
Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123
E-mail: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
-----------------------------
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 .
