Kirsti writes,
[[I do not know any drawing with three changing figures. - Well, now that that
think again, I do. It is this very same duck/rabbit picture. Seeing both
simultaneously IS the third figure. ]]
You might check out some of the paintings of Octavio Ocampo for examples of
three separate layers of figure/ground ambiguity. (Some of them can be found in
a book called Masters of Deception, by Al Seckel.)
However i don’t think that your experience of seeing duck and rabbit
simultaneously disproves the hypothesis that that these kinds of figures are
seen in an either/or way. I suppose it does refute it for you, but it can’t be
a refutation for the whole scientific community, because nobody but you had (or
could have) that individual experience. Your experiment can’t be replicated by
others because only your report of it, and not the phenomenon itself, is open
to public observation. Someone else might report a similar experience as
“flipping” the figure-ground relationship back and forth so fast that the two
views appear simultaneous. Would you then challenge their report as inaccurate?
How would you show the rest of us that yours is more accurate?
Anyway, the identification of the composite duckrabbit as third picture does
not depend on the simultaneity of duck and rabbit views – does it?
Gary F.
} For the clarity we are aiming at is indeed *complete* clarity. But this
simply means that the philosophical problems should *completely* disappear.
[Wittgenstein] {
www.gnusystems.ca/Peirce.htm }{ gnoxic studies: Peirce
From: C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On Behalf
Of Määttänen Kirsti
Sent: January-02-12 5:12 PM
Gary, list,
To me, your trichotomics is a fruitful approach. I don't see any basic
disagreement between our views.
To comment your provisional diagram: It may be better to take the case with the
utterer as the first separately from taking the interpreter as the first.
Putting both in the same position in the same diagram I find a bit confusing.
Perhaps making a diagram for both as separate cases (though interrelated, of
course) might be better.
It may well be the case that Peirce did not use the concept of Ground in his
later writings. Still, I can't see any grounds for he abandoning it. - But if
you, or anyone else in the list, knows of some explicit critical comments by
Peirce on the concept, I would be most grateful to know.
Peirce's work during his life presented such a wealth of approaches, so many of
them worked up to details. As I see it, he did not have time to come back to
many, many of the issues taken up earlier.
The triad with Ground as the first in the triad may well be one of the issues
he did not take up in his late
writings Still, I have given the concept a lot of thought. And studied it in
practice, taking it into use and trying it out. - As I view it, it has a quite
definite place in the architecture of Peirce's system.
Gestalt theory, with its idea of figure and (its) ground were (within its
limited scope) after something similar to what Peirce meant with his concept of
the Ground. But it just amounts to claiming that for every figure there is a
background which makes it possible for anyone to see the figure. - And this not
a trivial matter! - It is a most important philosophical matter.
You, and most listers probably know the concern Wittgenstein gave to the
duck/rabbit picture. One of the examples of being unable to see both
simultaneously, either the one of the other figure just vanishes, when one - or
the other - takes precedence.
Gestalt theory dealt with these kinds of pictures. - There are plenty.
To my knowledge and understanding, Wittgenstein never got any further than to
the understanding that for every figure there is a background, and that the
background always changes. Even if by little and little, and so little that
virtually no one can see it change. Still, it does.
On this philosophical understanding Wittgenstein based his writings on
certainty and on paradigms, the essential part of his later writings. - On this
I am fully convinced, be it or be it not - so far -a generally accepted view on
Wittgenstein.
Peirce does not give so much - if any - attention to the idea of figure and
ground. Still, his concept of Ground is in full accordance with the ideas of
Gestalt theory. But his concept has a vastly broader ground (pun intended), and
vastly broader consequences.
I take your provisional trichotomical diagram as an example. If you take an
utterer as the first, and the sign she or he utters as the second, then the
utterer always has in mind, not only his intention with uttering the sign, but
also all kinds of things she or he knows & understands and assumes the
interpreter also knows & understands.
In so assuming, she or he may be mistaken. As is often the case, but seldom
totally so.
Mostly, there is a partial understanding. This partial understanding makes
communication both possible and worthwhile. This partial mutual understanding
is what I take Peirce means with the concept of Ground.
Ground is a communal matter. Common ground is the essence (esquisse) and
prerequisite of community and communication. - It is always partial, that is
true. And always so. - But without it, there could not be any community, nor
communication.
To end with an anecdote: About fifteen years ago I started to see both the
duck and the rabbit in the picture. Earlier it had been impossible, the figures
I saw just changed from one to the other. The second step in experimenting
consisted of changing the figure at will. Then I could choose to see the rabbit
or the duck as I chose.
Every now and then I used to take up looking at the duck or the rabbit, as I
chose, as a past time. - Not very often, though. - To my surprise, it once
happened that I saw both, simultaneously.
Within Gestalt theory, it is supposed to be a human universal that these kinds
of figures are seen in an either/or way. - Well, it only takes one case to to
prove an assumption of universality wrong. - Just as it takes only one case to
prove a possibility.
I do not know any drawing with three changing figures. - Well, now that that
think again, I do. It is this very same duck/rabbit picture. Seeing both
simultaneously IS the third figure.
So I change my claim. I do not know any drawing designed for three alternating
and alternative figures. - If anyone knows, I would be very glad to hear about
it.
Best wishes for the still nascent year!
Kirsti
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L
listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to
lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line "SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L" in the body of the
message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
