Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Sense and the Making of Sense / St. Petersburg State University, June 2-4

[Helmut Raulien]

 

 
 

Supplement: About this topic, meaning to claim objectivity fore something originally subjective, Peirce´s paper "How to make our ideas clear" is wishful thinking. But there is nothing wrong with that. It (good or bad for me/us) just depends, whose wishes count: The societie´s (system´s) wishes (intentions), or ours (humans). A societial system has to arrange the many different meanings of any thing in a way that it serves it. This way of arrangement is not the same as human individuals would arrange these meanings in a democratical discourse to serve each individual. We (humans ) must say goodbye to the idea that nature is good. Nature is just there. The nature of a system is to make us its slaves. If this wasn´t so, life would not have emerged and developed. For example, eucariotic cells have enslaved procariotic ones from organisms to organs/organelles: Cell core, mitochondriae, plasts/chloroplasts. That was long ago. Now the danger is digitalism. You want to remain an organism, and not become an organ? Then throw away your smartphone. And never put on a 3D-glass. I did it once, and it was like: Boah! I want to stay there and never go back. Offtopic? Yes, but still about "meaning". Do you want the world to mean something to you and your man/woman/friends, or would you "metasystem-transition" your individuality into the hands of Zuckerbergian etc. sweet hell? At least then you never again have to ponder about the meaning of life, neither in general, nor specifically yours.



Dear Jean-Yves, dear Jerry, List,

 

Your approach, and Saussure´s and Ogden/Richard´s approaches to the concept of "meaning" is based on something quasi objective, which may be the structure of a system such as a culture, or a species, like humans. Or even something universal. This structure may be the result of a process of discourse and agreement. It is something like the sheet of assertion of the EGs.

 

So in this default, "meaning" is general already. Would you also like to talk about how meaning is generated resp. comes into being? I think, when a meaning first appears, it is what some thing means for something or somebody else, or for itself. So it is not something attachad to a thing, but something between a thing and another (or the same) thing or subject. Then it is getting complex.

 

For example, the meaning of "life" in general may be different for a biologist, for a philosopher, for a priest of a certain religion, for someone who is two of these or all three. The meaning of "my life" may be different for each individual, also depending on his/her profession/history and beliefs. In a society, these many differences make a vast complexity, which has to be reduced, if the society remains one, that is, if it serves and controls all. The two intentions of a system, becoming more complex on one hand, and integrating its parts for organs on the other, reqire certain ways how to produce and convey meaning. All that is very complicated, but interesting, I think.

 

Best Regards, Helmut

 
 

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. Juni 2022 um 02:28 Uhr
Von: "jean-yves beziau" 
An: "Jerry LR Chandler" 
Cc: "Peirce List" 
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sense and the Making of Sense / St. Petersburg State University, June 2-4



Dear Jerry
I started with a very simple and intuitive triple:

word / idea / thing

(or in a  more general setting: language / thought / reality).

One may ask if this forms a full Venn diagram (each part is non empty).

Or using the theory of opposition, if this forms a triangle of contrariety or a triangle of subcontrariety.

But my main point in "The Pyramid of Meaning" is to consider that there is something above this triangle joining the three elements of the triple. I call it 'notion'.

To do that I was directly inspired by Saussure. Saussure is very famous, but not so many people  know that Saussure uses "sign" to denote  the whole signifier/signified (signifiant/signifié). This use of 'sign' does not correspond to the standard use of the word which is rather on the side of the signifier. Saussure makes the following comment about his use of 'sign': "if I am satisfied with it, this is simply because I do not know of any word to replace it, the ordinary language suggesting no other."

This is a kind of default choice. Maybe a not so good choice, but it is true that it is not clear what would be the best word, unless creating one.

Anyway the excellent idea of Saussure was to consider on the one hand the distinction  signifier/signified, and on the other hand  to also consider the whole, giving it a name.

So I was directly inspired by him and I decided to choose the word "notion" for the whole word/idea/thing. 

Then the shape of the pyramid came naturally. Most real pyramids have square bases, but mathematically speaking a pyramid can have any polygon as a basis. If we have a triangular basis, the pyramid is  a tetrahedron, a simplex, as I explain in my paper:

http://www.jyb-logic.org/PYRAMID-OF-MEANING

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Sense and the Making of Sense / St. Petersburg State University, June 2-4

[Helmut Raulien]

Dear Jean-Yves, dear Jerry, List,

 

Your approach, and Saussure´s and Ogden/Richard´s approaches to the concept of "meaning" is based on something quasi objective, which may be the structure of a system such as a culture, or a species, like humans. Or even something universal. This structure may be the result of a process of discourse and agreement. It is something like the sheet of assertion of the EGs.

 

So in this default, "meaning" is general already. Would you also like to talk about how meaning is generated resp. comes into being? I think, when a meaning first appears, it is what some thing means for something or somebody else, or for itself. So it is not something attachad to a thing, but something between a thing and another (or the same) thing or subject. Then it is getting complex.

 

For example, the meaning of "life" in general may be different for a biologist, for a philosopher, for a priest of a certain religion, for someone who is two of these or all three. The meaning of "my life" may be different for each individual, also depending on his/her profession/history and beliefs. In a society, these many differences make a vast complexity, which has to be reduced, if the society remains one, that is, if it serves and controls all. The two intentions of a system, becoming more complex on one hand, and integrating its parts for organs on the other, reqire certain ways how to produce and convey meaning. All that is very complicated, but interesting, I think.

 

Best Regards, Helmut

 
 

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 02. Juni 2022 um 02:28 Uhr
Von: "jean-yves beziau" 
An: "Jerry LR Chandler" 
Cc: "Peirce List" 
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sense and the Making of Sense / St. Petersburg State University, June 2-4



Dear Jerry
I started with a very simple and intuitive triple:

word / idea / thing

(or in a  more general setting: language / thought / reality).

One may ask if this forms a full Venn diagram (each part is non empty).

Or using the theory of opposition, if this forms a triangle of contrariety or a triangle of subcontrariety.

But my main point in "The Pyramid of Meaning" is to consider that there is something above this triangle joining the three elements of the triple. I call it 'notion'.

To do that I was directly inspired by Saussure. Saussure is very famous, but not so many people  know that Saussure uses "sign" to denote  the whole signifier/signified (signifiant/signifié). This use of 'sign' does not correspond to the standard use of the word which is rather on the side of the signifier. Saussure makes the following comment about his use of 'sign': "if I am satisfied with it, this is simply because I do not know of any word to replace it, the ordinary language suggesting no other."

This is a kind of default choice. Maybe a not so good choice, but it is true that it is not clear what would be the best word, unless creating one.

Anyway the excellent idea of Saussure was to consider on the one hand the distinction  signifier/signified, and on the other hand  to also consider the whole, giving it a name.

So I was directly inspired by him and I decided to choose the word "notion" for the whole word/idea/thing. 

Then the shape of the pyramid came naturally. Most real pyramids have square bases, but mathematically speaking a pyramid can have any polygon as a basis. If we have a triangular basis, the pyramid is  a tetrahedron, a simplex, as I explain in my paper:

http://www.jyb-logic.org/PYRAMID-OF-MEANING

Those who want to attend my talk tomorrow June 2  at 4pm St Petersburg time have to fill the following form

https://regforms.spbu.ru/en/?option=com_rsform=rsform=1701

Best Wishes

JYB


>---

Prof. Dr. Dr. Jean-Yves Beziau 

Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

https://philpeople.org/profiles/jean-yves-beziau


 


On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 2:44 PM Jerry LR Chandler  wrote:


 
 

On Jun 1, 2022, at 5:55 AM, jean-yves beziau  wrote:
 


In this talk / paper, I present a new theory of meaning, inspired by Saussure,

but instead of considering only a pair (signifier/signified) packed in one element, the "sign", 

I consider a triple (word/idea/thing) packed in one element, the “notion”.       prof. Beziau:



 

Dear Prof. Beziau:

 

Thanks for posting this opportunity to learn more about your notions of non-classical logics. 

 

Perhaps you may wish to express more about how semiosis arranges the three elements of the sign into a single notion?

 

As stated, the assertion is perplex and difficult to grasp semantically and syntactically from a Peircian view.

 

I will watch with interest.

 

Cheers

Jerry

 

 




_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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