Edwina, in your haste to respond, you forgot to mention that your
interpretation of my post is your opinion, as all interpretations are. But we
will assume that you meant that, and evaluate your reply accordingly.
} Act in such a way that your heart may be free from hatred. Let not your heart
be offended with anyone. [Abdu'l-Baha] {
<https://gnusystems.ca/wp/> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On
Behalf Of Edwina Taborsky
Sent: 27-Sep-21 09:25
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Vagueness and ambiguity
Gary F, list
You are ignoring the FACTS of linguistic interpretation and the FACTS of the
semiosic triadic process.
The facts are, that language is not a mechanical communication system where
Item X is simply moved from Site A to Site B, but necessarily rests on a
dialogic interaction of interpretation. This is hardly a novel analysis;
linguistic research has shown this to be a fact for many, many years.
And since this dialogic interaction is triadic, it inserts a mediating action,
the Representamen/Sign..which transforms that raw data into a meaning. AND -
this resultant Interpretant meaning is different according to the actions of
the Representamen/Sign. AND - the Representamen/Sign can be and is necessarily
different for different Agents. An expert physicist understands the atom in a
very different way than the individual without such knowledge.
Therefore - your claim that I declare that Peirce meant the opposite of what he
wrote - rejects the semiosic triadic process and instead, proclaims the
validity of the mechanical process. It actually removes the
Representamen/Sign!!! Rejects semiosis!!
Edwina
On Mon 27/09/21 8:54 AM , [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> sent:
John, you’ve said repeatedly that only a direct quotation from Peirce can
represent what he thought or meant. Now you tell us that not even a direct
quotation can do that: “Nobody on planet earth is qualified to say that he or
she knows exactly what Peirce meant.” For all we know, Peirce could have meant
exactly the opposite of what he wrote in some direct quotation, as Edwina has
been arguing. So we are all free to attribute any thought to Peirce, as long as
we say that the attribution is an opinion; for all opinions are equally
baseless.
I think this logic, or hermeneutic, has the potential to revolutionize Peircean
studies. But of course that’s only my opinion, as all interpretations are.
Still, I can’t help wondering: why would anyone bother to read Peirce at all?
Gary f.
} By their fruits ye shall know them. [Matthew 7:20] {
https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
On Behalf Of sowa @bestweb.net
Sent: 27-Sep-21 00:33
To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ;
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Vagueness and ambiguity (was Argumentation for the Reality
of God
Edwina, Gary R, List,
I've spent many years working with linguists, lexicographers, and computer
scientists in developing tools for analyzing languages.and relating them to and
from logic and computer notations. Following are the slides for a talk about
the problems: http://jfsowa.com/talks/natlog.pdf
The first 20 slides present examples from a variety of sources. You can skip
the rest. But I want to emphasize slide 17 on microsenses. That's a term
coined by the linguist Allen Cruse, who observed that there is an open-ended,
potentially infinite, range of variations for nearly every word in every
language.
_____
ET: Thank you for the link to the last chapter of your book, where you outline
the basic ambiguity of language.This is a well-known fact and simply supports
my view that, for example, a reading of Peirce can only be an interpretation
and is not a direct mechanical transfer of meaning from Site A to Site B. It's
an interpretation and subject to further discussion.
Yes. Please read the examples in those slides. It's never safe to assume
that the same word in two different contexts has the same meaning. The
technical terms of science are more likely to have fairly fixed meanings, but
note the examples for the word number.
ET: This means that I reject JAS's statement that my interpretation of Peirce's
Mind/Body relationship is merely an 'assertion' whereas his interpretation is
an accurate demonstration because he provides 'exact quotations'
Yes. Peirce's thought was dynamically developing over the years. It's never
safe to assume that words in two different MSS have exactly the same
miicrosense. Nobody on planet earth is qualified to say that he or she knows
exactly what Peirce meant. His statements about mathematics and logic are
fairly reliable. But it's not possible to assume that any two people have the
same interpretation of the following words: mind, thought, feeling, God,
imagination and many others ,...
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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
