Helmut,
I was not using a metaphor. Nor was I suggesting what you inferred I
did. I just posed two questions, one on sign, one on meaning. Which, of
course, are deeply related. But how?
To my mind both questions are worth careful ponderings. Especially in
connection with this phase in the Lowell lectures.
Peirce was an experimentalist. In philosophy one does not need a
laboratory, but one needs though experiments.
I was inviting to participate in such experimenting. Writing down the
question and searching for answers which logically fit with the
question, is such an experiment.
Simplest math is recommended by CSP as starting point. To clear our
logical muddles and confusions, so I have inferred.
EGs are based on simple geometrical ideas, such as points and lines.
Which are cafefully developed into logical instruments, vehicles for
logical thinking.
Comments?
Kirsti
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 21.12.2017 21:32:
Gary, Kirsti, List,
I do not agree, that the geometrical metaphor suits. "Part of",
geometrically or spatially understood, is only one kind of being a
part of. Kirsti suggested, that meaning is a part of a sign. But is
meaning metaphorizable as a point on the line, with the line
metphorizable as a sign? Ok, a common speech metaphor is "I get the
point" for "I get the meaning". But still I think, that a functional
part is something completely different from a spatial, geometrical
part, a compartment. A sign is a function, not a range with a clear
spatial border, and there are different laws applying, which are not
geometrical, though there may be geometrical metaphors, but I think
they stumble. And: Metaphorization is not analysis. It is poetry.
Best,
Helmut
21. Dezember 2017 um 15:39 Uhr
[email protected]
wrote:
Kirsti, list,
Asking whether a sign has parts is like asking whether a line has
points. Peirce has a comment on that in one of my blog posts from last
month, http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/ [1]. By the way,
according to my sources, Aristotle used the word σημεῖον for
_point_ before Euclid.
Gary f.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 21-Dec-17 01:25
Listers,
Perhaps It is good to remember historical changes with names used for
geometrical point. Euclid introduced the word SEMEION, and defined it
as that which has no parts, and his followers started to that word
instead of the earlier STIGME . - But (with latin) the Romans & later
Boethius changed it to PUNCTUM in their commentaries.
Does a sign have parts? - How about meaning?
Best, Kirsti
----------------------------- 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 [2] .
Links:
------
[1] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/
[2] 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 .
