A 13:51 31/01/2006 -0500, Skagestad, Peter a écrit :
Bernard, Gary, and list,
The English wording is "Every decoding is another encoding". It is uttered
repeatedly in "Small World" by the fictional Professor Zapf, who
references Peirce as the father of semiotics, so David Lodge had at least
heard of Peirce. He later heard even more. After quoting this saying in
one of my papers (I think it was in "Peirce and Contemporary Thought"), I
sent Lodge a copy, for which he professed himself most grateful.
Peter
Thanks for the details Peter. I had forgotten them. It's nice to see that
D. Lodge had heard of Peirce and may be read about him. I suppose that you
have read the novel Thinks... the subject of which turns around Artificial
Intelligence. I don't remember if he is referring to Intelligence
Augmentation as such. I was a little bit disappointed when reading this one
because I felt that the author had got second hand documentation without
being directly involved with the milieu he was reporting (evidently Small
World was exactly the other way). But this was just an impression.
Bernard
________________________________
From: Bernard Morand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 1/31/2006 1:13 PM
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about?
A 20:19 30/01/2006 -0500, Gary Richmond a écrit :
>Bernard, list,
>
>You concluded your post by quoting (or paraphrasing?) David Lodge to the
>effect that "Every decoding is a new encoding." Of course this can be
>interpreted as exactly the point of the New Elements approach. As Peirce
>puts it:
>>In so far as the interpretant is the symbol. . . the determination agrees
>>with that of the symbol. . . It's purpose. . .is to represent the symbol
>>in its representation of its object; and therefore, the determination is
>>followed by a further development in which it becomes corrected. EP2:
323-324
>This, then, is exactly the entelechy of the symbol: "symbols grow" as
>Peirce elsewhere expresses it. He continues:
>>By virtue of of this [that "it is of the nature of a sign to be. .a
>>living general"] the interpretant is animaaed by the original replica. .
>>. with the power of representing the true character of the object. . . In
>>these two steps, of determination and of correction, the interpretant
>>aims at the object more than at the original replica and may be truer and
>>fuller than the later.
>Of course the implications of this are profound, for as Peirce comments:
>>The every entelechy of being lies in being representable. . .[so that]
>>there can be no reality which has not the life of a symbol. EP2: 324
>Gary
>
Gary and list,
My reference to D. Lodge was somehow interrogative because I know it only
through the French edition : "Tout décodage est un nouvel encodage". I was
not sure that the phrasing in the original English edition was what I was
writing. (As a matter of fact I suppose that D. Lodge did not read Peirce
but some ideas in his novels sound peircian)
To continue the discussion, we find "pure icons" in the following passage
of New Elements and "pure indices" will appear later. I mention this with
regard to a precedent discussion between Joe and Jon relative to "pure
symbols". I think that "pure" as to be taken here in the same sense as we
could consider "pure symbols". But in fact my question is elsewhere: at the
end of the quote Peirce makes the point that "an icon can only be a
fragment of a completer sign". I am not sure of what he is saying here.
Answers are welcome !
Bernard
-----------------------Quote New Elements------------------------
The more degenerate of the two forms (as I look upon it) is the icon. This
is defined as a sign of which the character that fits it to become a sign
of the sort that it is, is simply inherent in it as a quality of it. For
example, a geometrical figure drawn on paper may be an icon of a triangle
or other geometrical form. If one meets a man whose language one does not
know and resorts to imitative sounds and gestures, these approach the
character of an icon. The reason they are not pure icons is that the
purpose of them is emphasized. A pure icon is independent of any purpose.
It serves as a sign solely and simply by exhibiting the quality it serves
to signify. The relation to its object is a degenerate relation. It asserts
nothing. If it conveys information, it is only in the sense in which the
object that it is used to represent may be said to convey information. An
icon can only be a fragment of a completer sign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________
Bernard Morand
Département Informatique
Institut Universitaire de Technologie BP53 14123 Ifs Cedex France
TEL (33) 02 31 52 55 34 FAX (33) 02 31 52 55 22
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iutc3.unicaen.fr/~moranb/
__________________________________________________________________
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________________________
Bernard Morand
Département Informatique
Institut Universitaire de Technologie BP53 14123 Ifs Cedex France
TEL (33) 02 31 52 55 34 FAX (33) 02 31 52 55 22
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.iutc3.unicaen.fr/~moranb/
__________________________________________________________________
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
