Sung, you wrote to Stephen,
[QUOTE]
"Your written word just conveyed energy to my (6231-1)
fingers to say NO."
I did not write any words on a piece of paper (which would have been
an example of equilibrium structure, since no energy would have been
required for them to exist on a piece of paper).
The words that appeared on your computer screen (when you read my
email) are dissipative structures, since they would have disappeared
if your computer ran out of energy. As dissipative structures, my
words on your computer screen can do work, like stimulating the
retina of our eye generating nerve impulses which travel to your
visual cortex and thence eventually to the muscle cells in your
fingers that produced motions on the keyboard resulting in the
visual image"NO" on your computer screen.
[END QUOTE]
Sung, you're saying that words on a computer screen can do work on
Stephen but words written on a paper sign can't do work on Stephen - as
if seeing "Mr. Rose, you have won a million dollars" on computer screen
at a state .gov website would have an effect on him but seeing it in a
notarized letter to him from a state lottery would not. Then you
complain that philosophers don't understand physicists. I doubt that
many physicists would endorse your view of the physical effects of
words. Some might ask you for your physical definition of _/word/_.
The big difference to you seems to be whether the word comes to Stephen
by variations in illumination by the screen or by variations introduced
by the inscribed paper into the light that the paper reflects. To you
the computer screen's word IS those variations in illumination, but the
paper's word is NOT the variations in reflected light. But usually when
philosophers and everyday people speak of the written word, they do not
mean simply patterns of ink or pencil lead, but the system involving
their being potentially or actually read. This is why I said that the
spoken/written distinction has an affinity with the
dissipative/equilibrium distinction but is not a straightforward
instance of it.
The effect of the computer-screen word and the paper-sign word on Steven
may be quite the same. The nature of the effect would depend more on
what word, with what credibility, etc. That is why I switched to talking
about the event of reading, and the like, in order to try to save some
sense from the things that you said. The system involving a person's
reading a word on a computer-screen and the system involving a person's
reading a word on paper are both of them dissipative systems, while the
word's computer-screen display is dissipative and the word's on-paper
display is not.
Best, Ben
On 7/26/2014 9:28 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
Benjamin wrote:
"Verbal speech can be stored, too, in recordings (072614-1)
of sounds. You will have to stretch the meaning
of the word "written" to cover such recordings."
I do not have to stretch anything.
"Verbal speech", like spoken words, is a dissipative structure and
"recorded speech", like written words, is an equilibrium structure.
Peircean scholars and philosophers in general seem to find it difficult
(or trivial) to distinguish between the two categories of structures,
equilibrium and dissipative, probably because most philosophies have been
done with written, not spoken, words since the invention of writing. This
bias for equilibrium structures over dissipative ones in the medium of
communcation among philosophers may have left profound influences on the
content of "written" philosophies.
With all the best.
Sung
___________________________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
Sung, list,
If you want to take the word "written" so literally, then consider the
writing of an authorized signature on a contract or on legislation. Now,
you may say that the system of the individual writing-event is a
dissipative system, as opposed to the signature standing written.
But having to make such a finicky distinction shows that your
spoken-written distinction has only an affinity with the
dissipative-nondissipative distinction and is not an unequivocal
instance of it.
You'll have to go on being finicky in order to distinguish between the
signed legislation (at this point one hopes you'll allow the printed and
the written to form a single class) and its being copied, its being
read, its being remembered via the shaping and maintaining of habits, etc.
Verbal speech can be stored, too, in recordings of sounds. You will have
to stretch the meaning of the word "written" to cover such recordings.
Yet, let's say that it's indeed a kind of "written" or "printed" form.
More generally, we would call it "stored." You're reaching for the
distinction between that which is stored and that which is exerted or
freed. The written is more easily stored than the spoken. There's the
affinity of the written with the non-dissipative. The saying "The pen is
mightier than the sword" persists for reasons.
Best, Ben
On 7/26/2014 2:39 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
Stephen wrote (6231-1) and (6231-2):
"Your written word just conveyed energy to my (6231-1)
fingers to say NO."
I did not write any words on a piece of paper (which would have been an
example of equilibrium structure, since no energy would have been
required
for them to exist on a piece of paper).
The words that appeared on your computer screen (when you read my email)
are dissipative structures, since they would have disappeared if your
computer ran out of energy. As dissipative structures, my words on your
computer screen can do work, like stimulating the retina of our eye
generating nerve impulses which travel to your visual cortex and thence
eventually to the muscle cells in your fingers that produced motions on
the keyboard resulting in the visual image “NO†on your computer
screen.
“This distinction (between written and spoken words: my (6231-2)
addition) like many is a binary fantasy. A needless
distinction.â€
I disagree. It is not “a binary fantasyâ€. It is what I would call
“data-driven“ philosophy in contrast to “data-free†or
"data-independent"
philosophy, as exemplified in your Statements (6321-1) and (6321-2).
With all the best.
Sung
Am I believing my eyes? Your written word just conveyed energy to my
fingers to say NO. This distinction like many is a binary fantasy. A
needless distinction. Words written and spoken are the transitional
stage
between signs and our indexing of them as signs move toward expression
and
action. They are what we use to limit and make manageable the vague and
extensive aspects of signs and enable some consideration of them. All
words
limit. All words are subject to being understood not as they are
intended
to be understood but as the hearer or reader perceives them. Between
what
one says and what one writes there is only a difference of means. It is
also the case that when we are hearing or reading words stimulate the
creation of signs within us which we name with ... more words.
You wrote:
Thus, we can recognize two classes of "words" --- (i) written words
belonging to ES, and (ii) spoken words belonging to DS. Written words
cannot perform any work since they do not have any energy.
Again, no.
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu>
wrote:
-----------------------------
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 .
