Supplement: Maybe the universe is both the text and the writer (pantheism), or the universe is the text and the writer´s body (panentheism), or the universe is the text alone (theism). Which of these three possibilities are real, we can never know, because it is impossible to conclude from the text to the writer (Goedel`s incompleteness-theorem). But if we assume, that things we cannot know may well be, because why not, then theism appears quite likely. But we should not pay homage to, or picture something that is based on "why not". Why not? Because that would be presumption, pretension, usurpation. We are condemned aka free to sort out our affairs with our own means. There is something like the "label paradoxon": Who labels himself "good" acts worst, because he thinks, that the act of self-labelling already is a good act, which excuses all bad actions under that label. You know the examples.
List,
I think, a narrative is not necessarily an argument, or a set of propositions and arguments, it may also be a set of propositions only. I agree, that a narrative has a purpose, which is the narrator´s intention to narrate. Narrative intention is the intention to fixate belief. If the narration/narrative is merely a set of propositions, the method of belief-fixation is tenacity. If the narration contains one or more deductive arguments, the scientific method too is applied. If merely one or more arguments are part of it, which are abductions, the a-priori-method, additionally to the tenacity-method, is applied. What about inductive arguments? I am not sure. If the induction follows the sequence of abduction-deduction-induction, this is scientific method. But you cannot say, if it does, by merely regarding the inductive argument.
All in all, I think, a narrative is not necessarily a rheme, nor a proposition/dicent, nor an argument, but a composition of items from these classes. It may even be a set of just rhemes. Mostly it is a composition, when the term is used- but why not also call one rheme, one proposition, one argument a narrative too? I think, the term "narrative" can be boiled down to any sign that is due to an utterer´s intention. Any intention of any utterer is the intention to fixate belief, at least: "Believe in what I utter". Without this intention, nothing would be uttered. False signs, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, imputations are signs too, but self-uttered. So they may be called narratives too, but the narrator/utterer is identical with the interpretator. But the intention is missing. Erring has no clear intention. So the question remains: Does a narrative base on intention? I think yes. If the intention is unclear- Is it still a narrative? Answer: This is unclear. Mathematically this affair of inability to define is an example of "error propagation".
Best, Helmut
06. November 2021 um 22:21 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Gary F., Gary R., List:
GF (via GR below): What’s the difference between a narrative and an argument?
An argument is a specific kind of sign as distinguished from a proposition or a name in that it distinctly represents its interpretant, namely, its conclusion (CP 2.95, 1902). Accordingly, I suggest that the question is really whether a narrative qualifies as an argument, or is merely a copulative proposition. If "every true poem is a sound argument" (CP 5.119, EP 2:194, 1903), then it is at least plausible that a narrative could also be an argument. But what exactly is a true poem as opposed to a false poem? Is the latter still an argument, though presumably an unsound one? Is a true narrative likewise a sound argument, while a false narrative is an unsound argument? What about a fictional narrative?
GF: Is the entire universe both? (Or neither; or something else.)
Peirce maintains that "the Universe as an argument is necessarily a great work of art, a great poem--for every fine argument is a poem and a symphony" (ibid). My proposed argumentation for the reality of God relies on the semeiotic principle that every sign must be determined by an object that is external to, independent of, and unaffected by that sign itself--namely, its dynamical object. Of course, a case for the same conclusion could also be made on the basis that every work of art requires an artist, every poem requires a poet, and every symphony requires a composer. Likewise, if the entire universe is conceived as "a single grand narrative," then it seems to me that it requires a narrator.
GF (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-11/msg00028.html): A narrative is basically a representation of a sequence of events which is not necessarily meaningful in any way.
On the contrary, a narrative is a sign, and every sign is "meaningful" by virtue of having an immediate interpretant that is internal to it and a final interpretant that it would determine under ideal circumstances, as well as a dynamical interpretant that it does determine whenever it is actually interpreted. Moreover, events are entia rationis that must be prescinded from the continuous flow of time and change, so constructing a narrative involves deliberately selecting and demarcating which events in the sequence to include rather than ignore--i.e., which events to treat as significant.
GF: However, I notice that the term narrative, as used nowadays in the psychological and social sciences, has itself taken on an implication of purposefulness. We use our “narratives” to make sense of our lives and the lives of others, to discern the connections between actions and events.
Exactly, and we also use our "narratives" in an effort to influence how others make sense of their lives and the world. This is especially evident in the media these days--which events and details are selected vs. ignored reflects a certain point of view that the narrator takes for granted and either assumes to be already shared by readers/listeners/viewers or hopes to be adopted by them. Such a "narrative" is surely an argument defined as "any process of thought reasonably tending to produce a definite belief" (CP 6.456, EP 2:435, 1908).
GF: This is a natural development because we know that our actions have consequences and we would like to know what they are.
Indeed, I have suggested in my articles and presentations on "the logic of ingenuity" that just as engineers develop mathematical diagrams to model the problems that they encounter and work out potential solutions, humans in general develop narratives for the same purpose in everyday contexts, including ethical deliberation (https://www.structuremag.org/?p=11107). Before I knew much about Peirce, I wrote a column in the same magazine about "Narrative and Engineering" (https://www.structuremag.org/?p=8249) that concluded, "For better or for worse, a good story can often be more persuasive than a sound argument."
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 11:18 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote:
List,In an off List message Gary Fuhrman offered this quotation by the Peirce scholar, most recently president of the Charles S. Peirce Society (now past president) through the covid lockdown year of 2020, Michael Ramposa.“For anyone who embraces theosemiotic, the entire universe is a text, not so much a library, where two separate volumes might be pulled off the shelves and juxtaposed, but a single grand narrative, with an infinite variety of subplots.” —Raposa, Michael L.. Theosemiotic (pp. 189-190). Fordham University Press. .
In regard to this quotation Gary F asked the question: "What’s the difference between a narrative and an argument? Is the entire universe both?" (Or neither; or something else.)
It would seem that for Peirce the answer is that the universe is an "argument."
For those who embrace theosemiotic (and even for those who don't), what are your thoughts?
Best,
Gary R
“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria RilkeGary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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.
