Dear list, Just curious.. but does this current situation count as one that can benefit from logical investigation or no?
I mean, what does adherence to pragmatism prescribe? *But first, what is [pragmatism's] purpose? What is it expected to accomplish? It is expected to bring to an end those prolonged disputes of philosophers which no observations of facts could settle, and yet in which each side claims to prove that the other side is wrong. * *Pragmatism maintains that in those cases the disputants must be at cross-purposes. * *They either attach different meanings to words, or else one side or the other (or both) uses a word without any definite meaning. * *What is wanted, therefore, is a method of ascertaining the real meaning of any concept, doctrine, proposition, word, or other sign. The object of a sign is one thing; its meaning is another. Its object is the thing or occasion, however indefinite, to which it is to be applied. Its meaning is the idea which it attaches to that object, whether by way of mere supposition, or as a command, or as an assertion.* (CP 5.5) On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:54 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/13/2018 11:37 AM, [email protected] wrote: > >> I introduced the term “polyversity” and defined it in Chapter 2 of >> /Turning Signs/, >> > > Before I sent that note, I had searched that web page for every > occurrence of 'polyversity': http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/dlg.htm > > That web page has seven occurrences of the word polyversity. > Two occur in headings, and five occur in sentences: > > 1. "a meaning can have many words (polylogy)... Perhaps it would help > to have one word for polysemy and polylogy. How about polyversity?" > > 2. "Maybe what i call polyversity is the same as what's called > conceptual alternativity... (Talmy 2000, I.258)." > > 3. "But that's the whole point of polyversity: what appears at first > to be a new concept, or a false one, can always turn out to be > an old truth in a new (dis)guise" > > 4. "if my description of the world differs from yours, i can chalk it > up to polyversity and not to your personal perversity." > > 5. "All humans, regardless of culture, and barring special disabilities, > are equipped to learn some form of symbolic language – in all its > glorious polyversity." > > The first one is the closest to a definition. I did not quote it > because the one I quoted from your earlier note is clearer: > > I dealt with polysemy... by coining the word “polyversity” to include >>> not only polysemy (the tendency of a word to have various meanings) >>> but also the tendency of a meaning to be expressible in various >>> linguistic signs. >>> >> >> GF: That is not a definition, it’s a statement of my intention in >> coining the word; and I told you in that post where to find the >> definition. And as I showed in previous messages, your use was >> not consistent with it. >> > > In my earlier note, I used the word polyversity according to that > definition. You complained that I ignored your purpose for defining it. > But no occurrence in that web page indicates that some purpose outside > the definition constrains how the word may be used. > > In Peirce’s terminological practice, he was quite careful to use >> terms coined by others (such as Jeremy Bentham’s “cenoscopy”) only >> for the concept they were coined to name. Clearly his ethics of >> terminology obligated people in this way, and the last sentence >> of Rule #6 clearly implies that obligation. >> > > I believe that I conformed to that obligation. I took the only > definition I could find and followed it as precisely as I could. > If I made a mistake, please quote whichever passage you claim is > in error. Then show why you believe it's incorrect. > > John > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
