Jerry, For which context? I do not recognize the one you provide.
best, Auke > Op 11 juni 2020 om 6:12 schreef Jerry Rhee <[email protected]>: > > Hi Auke, JAS, list, > > Could you help me work this out? > > AvB: If Peirce did have a thought A, and later had a thought not-A , we > may say that he indeed erred the first time with A, but as well that he did > err when he discarded A. > > ‘man is a sign’ (1868) > ‘the general answer to the question what is man? is that he is a symbol.’ > (CP 7.585) > > So there, (pointing), you have A and not-A, because C A B. > > What would be a reason to say we did err, were we to discard A, > since a two (sign) cannot be a three (symbol) at the same time? > > I mean what “either side” are we talking about? > Are we saying that we should only accept that man is a three because it > is the more considered view because later, and that man can no longer be a > two? > > JAS: As I have said before, I believe that the proper approach--in > accordance with the hermeneutic principle of charity--is to assume that > Peirce's writings never contradict each other, unless and until this turns > out to be untenable. > At that point, I agree that a case can sometimes be made for either side; > but my default assumption is that his later writings reflect his more > considered views, and hence should be given slightly more weight accordingly. > > Thanks for your time, > Jerry R > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:22 PM Jon Alan Schmidt < > [email protected] mailto:[email protected] > wrote: > > > > Bernard, List: > > > > > > > > > BM: I was not trying to illustrate the > > project JAS is pursuing. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for clarifying this, I did not think that was your intent. > > > > > > > > > BM: Nevertheless the Magritte painting is a > > Sign, a complex one. But it needs to be perceived in order to act as such, > > I agree strongly with Robert on this. > > > > > > > > > > I agree that a sign must be perceived in order to act as > > such--i.e., it must be embodied in an actual token that determines an > > actual (dynamical) interpretant--but that is not what Robert stated. Here > > is the relevant part of our exchange again. > > > > > > > > > RM: A sign is always a real thing that > > represents because to be sign it must be perceived > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JAS: Something need not be perceived in > > order to qualify as a sign, as long as it is capable of determining a > > dynamical interpretant by virtue of having an immediate interpretant ... > > and a final interpretant ... > > > > > > > > > > My point was that a sign need not be perceived in order to be a > > sign. > > > > > > > > > BM: If it is possible to speak seriously > > about signs without referring explicitly to their technical definitions, > > what does it mean to practice "applied semiotics"? > > > > > > > > > > This is an excellent question for those who routinely complain > > about the supposedly excessive emphasis on semeiotic theory in List > > discussions. We cannot properly apply Peirce's ideas to today's problems > > unless we first establish what those ideas were, which requires paying > > careful attention to his technical definitions of the relevant terms. > > > > > > > > > BM: If signs need an observer, who is this > > observer if not a sign himself? > > > > > > > > > > Indeed, as I have noted previously, Peirce often uses "quasi-mind" > > in lieu of "mind" when referring to both the utterer and the interpreter of > > a sign; and he says that "every sign even if external to all minds must be > > a determination of a quasi-mind. This quasi-mind is itself a sign, a > > determinable sign" (SS 195, 1906). > > > > Regards, > > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran > > Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:35 PM Bernard Morand < > > [email protected] mailto:[email protected] > wrote: > > > > > > > Le 10/06/2020 à 18:08, John F. Sowa a écrit : > > > > > > > > Bernard Morand summarized the meaningful content of this > > > debate in one sentence plus one image: > > > > > > > > BM> In place of the old, often recurring debates on this > > > subject I propose to muse over a painting from René Magritte entitled "Le > > > sens > > > > des réalités" > > > > > > > > That image, which shows a large boulder suspended in the > > > middle of the clouds, is an excellent illustration of the way JAS > > > assembles > > > > "fireworks of quotations" (RM's phrase) to state a > > > hypothesis (AKA guess) and defend as if it were gospel truth. > > > > > > > John, List > > > > > > I was not trying to illustrate the project JAS is persuing. > > > > > > I wanted to ask by means of the painting: what does "Real" > > > mean ? With the consequence: What is "Real" in the nature of signs? > > > > > > This latter question seems to me to be at the core of the > > > Peirce's way of thinking. > > > > > > Going back to the Magritte's painting, I think impossible > > > that the boulder may be "suspended in the middle of the clouds" as John > > > see it. > > > > > > Because it would be a manifest violation of the law of > > > universal gravitation. The boulder is falling down to the earth that we > > > see distinctly on the lower part of the image, may be it is some kind of > > > meteorite. > > > > > > So we have from the beginning an image of the Reality: that > > > which will hurt you -and perhaps kill you- if you stay under the boulder. > > > > > > But we can imagine some other senses of realities apart this > > > one that has been derived from the necessity of law. > > > > > > The boulder is really an event, here and there on the painted > > > scene, -it is an intrusion- and as such it causes an effect of surprise > > > for the audience (this effect is also initiated by Magritte himself to > > > make the spectator think about the scene). This intrusive event is also a > > > sense of realities: to be able of observation. > > > > > > Finally one latter sense of reality may consist in the > > > consideration of the painting as recalling to our memories the extinction > > > of the dinosaurs. A possibility already envisaged by scientists. > > > > > > Sure, all of this comment of the Magritte painting is highly > > > problematic. Many more stories could be presented in illustration of the > > > painting, probably as much as people commenting it. > > > > > > Sure, there is in this example nothing which proves that > > > Peirce's semiotic is a truth. As a matter of fact common sense has > > > already recognized that "an example is not a proof". > > > > > > Nevertheless one can see that his semiotic elementary > > > distinctions -immediate and dynamic object, immediate dynamic normal > > > interpretant, sign- are there, behind. I just choose to escape technical > > > terms in this mail. > > > > > > Nevertheless the Magritte painting is a Sign, a complex one. > > > But it needs to be perceived in order to act as such, I agree strongly > > > with Robert on this. > > > > > > I finish with two questions of which I have quite no answer: > > > > > > 1) If it is possible to speak seriously about signs without > > > referring explicitely to their technical definitions, what does it mean > > > to pratice "applied semiotics"? > > > > > > 2) If signs need an observer, who is this observer if not a > > > sign himself? > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe > PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by The PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
