There's a lot beyond what you have said that is suggestive. But I will say
just two things. If I was starting from scratch I would recognize a
division between any contrived or explicit or mathematical or scientific
language that is logically consistent and what I would call normal language
or some such phrase. This is all the stuff that goes on between us all. It
is imprecise, vague, comprehended, doomed to miss and otherwise as slippery
as a handful of minnows. Even here when not dealing or referring to some
specific logical unity within the whole of language we talk past one
another and as often as not are saying something entirely different than
what is set down. As Isaiah (poet one) said: "See and see but do not
perceive". Now I am probably close to being a musical prodigy but I could
never master the lingo so when I was commissioned to do choral work I sang
into a tape recorder and passed words and tape on to a fellow who knew how
to finish the job. My inabilities in the entire area of what I would call
contrived or explicit languages amount to much more of a disability than
Peirce's lamented left-handedness. My entire project has to do with how we
can communicate better in normal language to the point that we achieve a
slight tilt in our inherited modes of communication which I see as binary.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <> wrote:

> Stephen, John:
> On Apr 14, 2018, at 11:57 AM, Stephen C. Rose <> wrote:
> Words, as noted, are often a frail reed but they have a purpose.
> This is a very clever phrase; I like it very much.
> Do you think that all of academic philosophy (not just the ones that post
> here) uses all words in this sense?
> That being said (with a bit of sarcasm :-) ), I think you missed the
> intent of my message so I would ask that you broaden the scope of your
> considerations.
> I start from my lifelong experience that human communication is an
> extraordinarily difficult topic to discuss, in part because the huge
> variety of experiences of individuals with different educational
> backgrounds.
> The point is that human cultures have constructed *many many many* symbol
> systems.
> Semiotics applies to BOTH natural external signs and to symbols
> externalized by purposeful human intent.
> Consider the notation for music.
> This symbol system is a very important to many individuals in our cultural.
> One reference system for a musical notation is often an mathematical
> object, an octave and repetitions of octaves.
> Another reference system is a measure. Compositions into phrases, etc.
> *Both* reference systems invoke the notion of time.
> I think that most would agree that this is a very effective symbol systems
> for communicating information.
> It is pragmatically successful despite the linguistic ambiguity of the two
> temporal reference systems in the notation.
> Are Inferences from the musical notation to mathematics, physics, sound
> perception and emotions logical?  If so, how is the temporal ambiguity
> interpreted?
> Since so many different symbol systems are used in so many different
> disciplines, an interpreter of a symbolic message must have some knowledge
> of the symbol system before one can make propositions or sorites that are
> consistent within the symbol system.
> In other words, the notation for a particular symbol system is internally
> logically consistent as a whole, not merely a few strings of symbols (that
> is, parts of whole.)  A symphonic score makes sense *to the composer* as
> whole, even though it may be gibberish to an engineer or philosopher or
> theologian!
> Numerous other examples of the part-whole (mereological) relationships in
> symbolic meanings are readily apparent.
> But, part-whole relationships are only meaningful *IF the interpreter is
> competent in that species of symbols (language*.)
> I hope this has some meaning to you…
> Cheers
> Jerry
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at .

Reply via email to