Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

[Stephen C. Rose]

Isn't the point of considering anything the end? And isn't the end a
practical actionable something (expression, act) that contains the initial
sign and the index. In which case the sign would already have been
predefined by the logical end, though requiring the cogitative process to
get there. Isn't the end the point of the pragmaticist maxim.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:03 AM, John F Sowa  wrote:

> On 8/11/2017 5:09 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
>> A system, I think, is defined by the part of its structure, that does not
>> change. The system exists as long as this part of structure (set of
>> relations) exists. Which part of the structure is used to define the
>> system, can be arbitrary choice, but usually is something essential,
>> whatever this means.
>>
>
> You could apply Peirce's classification of signs to this analysis.
>
> As an example, consider the book _War and Peace_.  Peirce would call
> the physical book a sign token.  The corresponding type would be
> the entire text, considered as a string of chapters, paragraphs,
> sentences, words -- independent of any method of presentation
> or storage.
>
> That type is an abstraction from the physical book.  But there is
> an even more general abstraction:  the detailed plot of the book,
> which is the same type for Tolstoy's original Russian and the
> translation to English or any other language.
>
> A very similar, but somewhat simplified plot type could be used
> to classify a movie made from the book.  The plot type for the
> movie and the plot type for the book would both be special cases
> of a more general plot type.
>
> Every system has a "Now". This is the signs, that happen every now,
>> and this "now" travels through time.
>>
>
> You could apply that description to the movie as it is projected
> on a screen (in a theater or on a computer).
>
> But you could also apply it to the process of a person sitting
> in a chair and reading the book -- in any language.  That process
> may be discontinuous, since people don't read _War and Peace_
> in a single sitting.
>
> John
>
>
> -
> 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

[John F Sowa]

On 8/11/2017 5:09 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
A system, I think, is defined by the part of its structure, that does 
not change. The system exists as long as this part of structure (set of 
relations) exists. Which part of the structure is used to define the 
system, can be arbitrary choice, but usually is something essential, 
whatever this means.


You could apply Peirce's classification of signs to this analysis.

As an example, consider the book _War and Peace_.  Peirce would call
the physical book a sign token.  The corresponding type would be
the entire text, considered as a string of chapters, paragraphs,
sentences, words -- independent of any method of presentation
or storage.

That type is an abstraction from the physical book.  But there is
an even more general abstraction:  the detailed plot of the book,
which is the same type for Tolstoy's original Russian and the
translation to English or any other language.

A very similar, but somewhat simplified plot type could be used
to classify a movie made from the book.  The plot type for the
movie and the plot type for the book would both be special cases
of a more general plot type.


Every system has a "Now". This is the signs, that happen every now,
and this "now" travels through time.


You could apply that description to the movie as it is projected
on a screen (in a theater or on a computer).

But you could also apply it to the process of a person sitting
in a chair and reading the book -- in any language.  That process
may be discontinuous, since people don't read _War and Peace_
in a single sitting.

John

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

[John F Sowa]

On 8/12/2017 10:43 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:

Isn't the point of considering anything the end? And isn't the end
a practical actionable something (expression, act) that contains
the initial sign and the index.


Peirce said that the interpretant of any sign is always another sign.
He also said that every meaningful sign must show its passport at the
gates of perception and action.  But he put no limits on the number
of intermediate steps.


In which case the sign would already have been predefined by the
logical end, though requiring the cogitative process to get there.
Isn't the end the point of the pragmaticist maxim.


Both gates are essential for meaningful signs.  But any mark
may be interpreted as a token of an open-ended variety of types.
A meaningful sign could be encountered on many different steps
of many different paths from perceptible marks to purposive actions.

John

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Aw: Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

[Helmut Raulien]

Stephen, John, List,

that  a token is often one of "an open-ended variety of types", I find interesting and very agreeable. I have problems with the term "final" or "end" anyway. I guess that the pragmatic maxim is only a proposal how to make our ideas clearer, in order to be able to talk more reasonably, but not absolutely end-clear. The nirvana of absolute truth I imagine as very boring, because static, and therefore do not want to believe in it.

Best,

Helmut

 

12. August 2017 um 21:37 Uhr
 "John F Sowa" 
 

On 8/12/2017 10:43 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
> Isn't the point of considering anything the end? And isn't the end
> a practical actionable something (_expression_, act) that contains
> the initial sign and the index.

Peirce said that the interpretant of any sign is always another sign.
He also said that every meaningful sign must show its passport at the
gates of perception and action. But he put no limits on the number
of intermediate steps.

> In which case the sign would already have been predefined by the
> logical end, though requiring the cogitative process to get there.
> Isn't the end the point of the pragmaticist maxim.

Both gates are essential for meaningful signs. But any mark
may be interpreted as a token of an open-ended variety of types.
A meaningful sign could be encountered on many different steps
of many different paths from perceptible marks to purposive actions.

John

-
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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .



 




-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Aw: Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

[Helmut Raulien]

John, List,

the plot type is a sign type, but is it a sign? Or are only the tokens signs, because only they are perceived? Like a book that is read. And is the book only a sign when it is being read, because only then it is interpreted, and when it is closed, it sort of sleeps and is not a sign?

And is a complex system, like a person or a society, a sign too? If so, maybe a systems theory is not necessary, but a box-in-box-theory of signs, like a person who reads a book is a sign which interprets another sign. And when nothing is happening, the book is closed and the person asleep, there are no signs, but sign tokens and sign types.

So maybe it would be possible to translate all systems theory terms into Peircean "sign-" terms, and not use the term "system" at all?

Best,

Helmut

 

 12. August 2017 um 15:03 Uhr
 "John F Sowa" 
wrote:

 

On 8/11/2017 5:09 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> A system, I think, is defined by the part of its structure, that does
> not change. The system exists as long as this part of structure (set of
> relations) exists. Which part of the structure is used to define the
> system, can be arbitrary choice, but usually is something essential,
> whatever this means.

You could apply Peirce's classification of signs to this analysis.

As an example, consider the book _War and Peace_. Peirce would call
the physical book a sign token. The corresponding type would be
the entire text, considered as a string of chapters, paragraphs,
sentences, words -- independent of any method of presentation
or storage.

That type is an abstraction from the physical book. But there is
an even more general abstraction: the detailed plot of the book,
which is the same type for Tolstoy's original Russian and the
translation to English or any other language.

A very similar, but somewhat simplified plot type could be used
to classify a movie made from the book. The plot type for the
movie and the plot type for the book would both be special cases
of a more general plot type.

> Every system has a "Now". This is the signs, that happen every now,
> and this "now" travels through time.

You could apply that description to the movie as it is projected
on a screen (in a theater or on a computer).

But you could also apply it to the process of a person sitting
in a chair and reading the book -- in any language. That process
may be discontinuous, since people don't read _War and Peace_
in a single sitting.

John

-
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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .



 




-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

[Stephen C. Rose]

Thanks. That makes sense. I think to popularize Peirce in the best sense is
to create a model that has three stages but which is clearly as you say,
not a rote affair. The best popular iteration of a general approach that
seems to me triadic is "Madam Secretary" whose theme is not merely thinking
beyond the box but beyond it. I read your paper you mentioned and am very
glad to see some consonance between Peirce and Wittgenstein as they seemed
to arrive at much the same point by somewhat different ways.

amazon.com/author/stephenrose

On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:37 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:

> On 8/12/2017 10:43 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
>
>> Isn't the point of considering anything the end? And isn't the end
>> a practical actionable something (expression, act) that contains
>> the initial sign and the index.
>>
>
> Peirce said that the interpretant of any sign is always another sign.
> He also said that every meaningful sign must show its passport at the
> gates of perception and action.  But he put no limits on the number
> of intermediate steps.
>
> In which case the sign would already have been predefined by the
>> logical end, though requiring the cogitative process to get there.
>> Isn't the end the point of the pragmaticist maxim.
>>
>
> Both gates are essential for meaningful signs.  But any mark
> may be interpreted as a token of an open-ended variety of types.
> A meaningful sign could be encountered on many different steps
> of many different paths from perceptible marks to purposive actions.
>
> John
>
>
> -
> 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .