Gary f, list
My source on Eucleides was Grattan-Guinness (The Fontana history of the
mathematical sciences) and my thirty years old notes on the topic. (&
Liddell and Scott, of course.)
It is important to keep in mind that no such divisions (or
classifications) between sciences that are taken for granted today did
not exist in ancient times. - Still, Eucleides was studied by
mathematicians for centuries. It was taken for granted. Up till
non-Euclidean math. Even the Bible came much, much later.
Meaning is context-dependent, that much we all agree. We have signs from
old times, no dispute on that. But do we have meanings?
I have problems with the following:
GARY f.: My
answer to the question of whether a sign has parts was, I thought,
implied by the Peirce quote in the blog post I linked to,
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/ [1]: “upon a continuous
line there are no points (where the line is continuous), there is only
room for points,— possibilities of points.” But if you MARK a
point on the line, one of those possibilities is actualized; and if
the line has a beginning and end, then it has those two points
(discontinuities) already.
I cannot understand the use of quotation marks & the lack of use fo them
in what follows.
Peirce took up in several contexts his point of marking any points and
thus breaking continuity. He took care to set down rules for (logical)
acceptability for doing so.
In order to understand his meaning three triads are needed. Possibility,
virtuality and actuality makes one of them. (But only one of them.)
CSP wrote on Ethics of Terminology. - Did he follow these ethical rules?
- I'd say YES and NO. To the despair of his readers he chanced his
terminology over the decaces very, very often. But it was HIS to change,
in order to accommondate with renewed understanding of his whole
conceptual system, his new findings along the way in making it move...
I firmly believe he had a reason every time for those changes. BUT he
also experimented with words he took into a kind of test driving for his
concepts. Such as "phaneron". An experiment doomed to fail.
Why do I believe so? - I have never read him explicitly saying so. But
the term (etymology etc) did get the idea twisted in such ways which
were inconsistent with his deeper views. - So when I read those texts by
him using "phaneron", I took note of the year and looked forward to see
him stop using it.
It not a job for me to search whether he did or not. It is job for
seminary minded philosophers. Not for the laboratory minded ones.
I wish to take up Ethics of Interpretation in a similar spirit. In order
to make our ideas more clear, it may be good to try to keep quotes and
interpretations so marked that any reader can tell which is which.
It is an impossible task, I know. Just as impossible to any human being
as is Christian ethics. But a very good guideline to keep in mind & to
follow as best one can.
The links in any post may get read or not. - It takes too much time to
read all those offered.
What cannot be included in the verbal response, I find informative.
Still, I may not have the time at my disposal to open them.
Looking forward to forthcoming chapters in Lowell lectures. My thanks
for the most valuable job you are doing Gary f.
Best regards, Kirsti
[email protected] kirjoitti 22.12.2017 14:50:
Kirsti, John, list,
My source for the usage of SEMEION was Liddell and Scott (which can be
searched online). As John says, the primary meaning is “mark”. My
answer to the question of whether a sign has parts was, I thought,
implied by the Peirce quote in the blog post I linked to,
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/ [1]: “upon a continuous
line there are no points (where the line is continuous), there is only
room for points,— possibilities of points.” But if you MARK a
point on the line, one of those possibilities is actualized; and if
the line has a beginning and end, then it has those two points
(discontinuities) already.
I was suggesting an analogy to a sign: for instance, you can say that
a dicisign has subject(s) and predicate, but in late Peircean
semeiotics, the analysis into these “parts” is somewhat arbitrary,
and in some cases, so is the choice of whether it has one
“subject” or several. The more “complete” a sign is, the more
the element of continuity (or Thirdness) is predominant in it, and
thus the more room there is in it for POSSIBILITIES of parts, i.e. the
more opportunity for analyzing it into “partial signs.” Sorry for
being so elliptical in my post, but that was my point (if you’ll
pardon the expression). I have a very unPeircean fondness for
conciseness.
By the way, the manuscript of Lowell 4 has a very detailed and
previously unpublished explanation of (hypostatic) abstractions such
as “dormitive virtue”, so that may be of use for continuing your
recent discussion of abstraction, when we reach that point in the next
lecture.
Gary f.
-----Original Message-----
From: John F Sowa [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 22-Dec-17 01:01
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6
Kirsti and Gary F,
K
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 .
GF
By the way, according to my sources, Aristotle used the word
σημεῖον
for point before Euclid. [And from web site] According to the
Liddell
and Scott lexicon, the word σημεῖον (the usual Greek word
for sign and
root of semeiotic) was also used by Aristotle for a mathematical
point, or a point in time. In this sense it was synonymous with
στιγμή
(stigma).
I checked Liddell & Scott, Chantraine's dictionnaire étymologique,
and Heath's translation and commentary on Euclid.
The base word is the verb 'stigo', which means to mark something; for
example, as a sign of ownership. From that, the word 'stigma'
(ending in alpha instead of eta) meant the mark caused by a pointed
instrument. The word 'stigme' originally meant a spot in a bird's
plumage; then it came to mean any spot, a small mark, or an instant.
Aristotle explicitly said that a point was a marker on a line, not a
part of the line. Heath said that Euclid generally followed
Aristotle. But in vol. 1, p. 156, he said that 'semeion' was probably
"considered more suitable than 'stigme' (a puncture) which might claim
to have more reality than a point."
In summary, all three words (stigma, stigme, and semeion) could refer
to a mark, but semeion is more abstract and general than the others.
K
Does a sign have parts? - How about meaning?
The word 'semeion' could be used to refer to any kind of mark.
Euclid used it for just one particular kind. For that use in
geometry, the thing it refers to has no parts.
K
the Romans & later Boethius changed it to PUNCTUM in their
commentaries.
I believe that it was good idea to have two distinct words:
'signum' for sign, and 'punctum' for point.
John
Links:
------
[1] http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/11/stigmata/
-----------------------------
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 .
