Jerry,
Sorry, i was just trying to explain how the terms "collective" and
"distributive" are used by logicians such as Peirce in actual discourse (which
apparently does not interest you). I couldn't tell from your earlier post --
and still can't tell from this one! -- whether you were aware that these are
standard terms in logic, with conventionally established uses, and have been
since well before Peirce's time. Whether they are standard terms in set theory
i neither know nor care, and i didn't profess to say anything about set theory.
I gather that you think the meanings of a term (such as "communication" or
"community") should somehow be deduced from its etymological root, and you
therefore choose to ignore the role of convention and context in determining
its role within a specific symbol (such as JR's essay or one of the comments on
it). But i don't think that someone who arbitrarily reinvents the meanings of
conventional terms can reasonably expect others to guess what he's using them
for. Make your *language* idiosyncratic enough, and nobody else can even tell
whether your *opinions* are idiosyncratic or not!
Gary F.
} Any analytical approach to understanding simplicity always turns out to be
very complex. [Howard Pattee] {
www.gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm }{ gnoxic studies: Peirce
-----Original Message-----
From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Jerry LR Chandler
Sent: October-05-11 10:16 PM
On Oct 2, 2011, at 11:06 AM, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> [[ I have been debating with myself for the past month on the relations
> between "collective" and "distributive" in the context of 'communicational
> communities'. A complete stalemate exists. I have no idea what this phrase
> might mean logically or socially. ]]
>
> If you have no idea what the phrase " communicational communities" denotes, i
> wonder how you are able to sustain a debate about the relations between terms
> in that context! But just in case it might be helpful: a proposition
> referring to a set (or group or class or community) is taken collectively if
> its subject is *the set as a whole*, and is taken distributively if its
> subject is *each member* of the set. (Or it can be taken selectively, in
> which case its subject is *some member* of the set.) In the case of a
> scientific community, for instance, there's a big difference (and a logical
> relation of some kind) between the behavior of the community and the behavior
> of its members. And the same goes for a political community.
>
> Gary F.
Hi Gary:
Thanks for the intriguing response to the notion "internal debate."
Of course, an internal debate is a reflexive mental action on our individual
personal experience, intellectual development, present context, and so forth.
It is a unique, one-of-a-kind debate that Is difficult to make public as the
representations are embedded in our personal neuronal networks of meaningful
symbolizations.
I will make an effort to give my personal view, which certainly will NOT
include a reference to set theory. In my debate, set theory never enters the
stage. The reason is simple. Set theory is known for decades to be laced with
paradoxes. More recently, the issues of "para-consistency" have rotted away the
foundations of set theory as a decision making tool for biology / medicine. Set
theory may be useful in machine logic, certain computations and in some nice
narratives, but, it is not adequate for the logic of chemistry or biology.
Hence, we have "biosemiotics" as an inquiry into the logic of biology and
medicine.
More specifically, my conundrum lies with the roots of the terms used in the
phrase.
The pairs of symbols "communicating communities" both are derived from the same
root, so the adjective function is modifying itself. Thus, the pair of symbols
is analogous to the grammar of the pair, reddish redness.
Is this meaningful?
The second pair of symbols, distributive and collective, are intimately related.
A collection is possible only from a distribution.
A distribution is possible only from a collection.
The terms function as inverses of one another.
Is this meaningful?
So, my internal debate is a futile search for meaning from the roots of the
terms as I understand them.
Everyone is entitled to a few idiosyncratic opinions, are they not?
Cheers
Jerry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
[email protected] with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the
message. To post a message to the list, send it to [email protected]
