Gary, Jim P., Jim W., Frances, Claudio, Steven, Joe, list,
It's bothered me -- but I had deferred unto forgetfulness my doing
something about it -- that the conception of recognition which I've been
discussing has been more in the sense of acknowledgement rather than in the
sense of remembering. It's not that memory is irrelevant, but it's good to be
clear. This post is largely about my adopting a new term in place of
"recognizant."
Now, despite similarities, it is important to destinguish between the
time-oriented cognitive faculties such as memory and the semiosis-oriented
cognitive faculties such as acknowledgement & acknowledgement-style
recognition. Likewise one distinguishes between noticing, alertness,
acuity, discernment on one hand, and understanding, insight, comprehension, on
the other. Words like "acuity" & "discernment" get used in both senses, and
to understand or interpret is indeed mode of noticing something coming to light
in the present, as information. Likewise, semiotic recognition is still based on
memory and experience, whether it recognizes and confirms an interpretant on the
basis of old experience dredged up from memory, or whether the mind conducts
an experience and recognizes it as accordant with the interpretant.
One is reminded here of the famous schematic diagram of the workings of the red,
green, & blue cones, and of how signals from all three collectively would
cancel out to white. The diagram was somewhat hypothetical and meant only to be
schematic, but when the relevant neural structure was found, examined under a
microscope, and photographed, it turned out to appear in its very
proportions like the diagram! Now, if we count this experience or recognition,
as simply the obect's stepping forward to introduce some fresh determination
into semiosis, so that we have, as a semiotic element, not a recognition of the
object, but rather the object-as-recognized, then why is the sign not merely the
object-as-represented, and why is the interpretant not merely the
object-as-interpreted-about? It's for the same kind of reason across the board:
the object does not convey, clarify, or confirm itself automatically. If the
object did so, then we would not need signs, interpretants, or confirmations.
And the sequential necessity for each of those things is carried in their
standard characterizations. The sign means, and the meaning is formed
clarifiedly into the interpretant. The interpretant clarifies on the basis
of conceivable practical consequences, and that basis is formed
confirmately into a recognition in an actual case. Anyway, I will add the
above objection, that the recognizant is really just the object itself, which
Gary brought up to me the other evening, to the list. I owe him that much, he
paid for dinner. Seriously, it's a worthwhile objection, and brings the semiotic
elements out in an interesting light.
Now, because of the ambiguity of "recognition," the sense in which the
semiotic act is potentially public -- e.g., "interpretation" instead of
"understanding" -- is insufficiently prominent. My understanding is my
interpretation to myself. One person may interpret to another person, but we
would never say that one "understands" to another. My term for recognition as a
semiotic element should be just as immediately suggestive of public-orientedness
and pragmatic orientation as terms like object, sign, representation,
interpretant, and interpretation. Reasonable behavior under extraordinarily
stressful circumstances might be taken as a kind of interpretant whose idea is
that reason works, even when it might seem better to join in some craziness. But
it may also be a recognition & acknowledgement, reasonably well
confirmed, that reason works under such circumstances, a recognition which
is subjecting itself to further testing at what it believes to be low risk (the
further testing isn't usually the goal).
Now, I had noticed various Latin words from which I might form an
appropriate term, but the results seemed odd & unevocative. Nevertheless,
the Lewis & Short definition of the Latin _agnosco, agnoscere, agnovi,
agnitus / agnotus_ has propelled me to decide on "agnoscent". . (_agnitus_ seems more
common than _agnotus_, but I think I like "agnotion" better than
"agnition.") So, henceforth, that which I have called the "recognizant," I will
call the "agnoscent." I'm not too favorable toward the word "acknowledgement"
itself. It suggests the idea of a recognition that comes, perhaps grudgingly, as
an admission or confession. But that sense may be unavoidable in the nature or
logic of the case.
A few excerpts from the Lewis & Short definition
66~~~~~~~~~
I. As if _to know a person or thing well_,
as having known it before, to recognize: _agnoscere_ always denotes a
subjective knowledge or recognition; while _cognoscere_ designates an
objective perception; another distinction v. in II.) ....
~~~~~~~~~99
So, in its root sense, it is not an achievement word. That is, I think,
preferable, when the semiotician wishes to discuss that which the mind in
question regards as reasonably well confirmed, without the semiotician's
verbally thereby endorsing the truth which the mind regards as confirmed.
66~~~~~~~~~
B. Transf., as a result of this knowledge or
recognition, _to declare, announce, allow,_ or _admit a
thing to be one's own, to acknowledge, own_: ....
~~~~~~~~~99
This suffices for the public-orientedness of the semiotic element.
66~~~~~~~~~
II. _To understand, recognize, know,
perceive_ by, from, or through something...
~~~~~~~~~99
I.e., to recognize through report or inference.
(General note: It is also important to notice when two words differ
_less_ in the question of what faculty they name, than in whether they
are achievement words. "Interpretation" is not an achievement word.
"Understanding" has, to my sense of it, two distinct senses, one an achievement
sense ("They really understand them!"), and the other, not an achievement sense
("Well, uh, that's my understanding, anyway"). "Foresight" is an achievement
word. "Expectation" is not an achievement word. "Anticipate" sometimes seems an
achievement word. "Foresight" is more of an achievement word than its verb form
"foresee.")
Best, Ben Udell
---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [email protected]
