List: Gary writes,
> Your original question, “How is a sign embodied in two different objects?”, > does not make sense in that context. Sense making? My original question stands; the additional text does not clarify the meaning for me. I understand that you (Gary) can not make sense of the question. Is it possible that from a wider perspective of symbol-making, that the sentence makes sense? Some find that it requires substantial imagination to follow CSP texts. Further, some find that different readers find different glosses for CSP's texts. When I phrased the question, I was seeking understanding of the text. Cheers Jerry On Oct 25, 2015, at 2:10 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > Jerry, EP2:477 is from a 1906 letter from Peirce to Lady Welby, and the EP2 > editors chose to omit part of it, including the paragraph preceding the one > that I quoted. Restoring this context may help to clear up your confusion > about Peirce’s usage of “embodied,” which is compatible with the first > meaning you quote from the Apple dictionary. Here are the two paragraphs > together: > > [[ I almost despair of making clear what I mean by a “quasi-mind;” But I will > try. A thought is notper se in any mind or quasi-mind. I mean this in the > same sense as I might say that Right or Truth would remain what they are > though they were not embodied, & though nothing were right or true. But a > thought, to gain any active mode of being must be embodied in a Sign. A > thought is a special variety of sign. All thinking is necessarily a sort of > dialogue, an appeal from the momentary self to the better considered self of > the immediate and of the general future. Now as every thinking requires a > mind, so every sign even if external to all minds must be a determination of > a quasi-mind. This quasi-mind is itself a sign, a determinable sign. Consider > for example a blank-book. It is meant to be written in. Words written in that > in due order will have quite another force from the same words scattered > accidentally on the ground, even should these happen to have fallen into > collections which would have a meaning if written in the blank-book. The > language employed in discoursing to the reader, and the language employed to > express the thought to which the discourse relates should be kept distinct > and each should be selected for its peculiar fitness for the purpose it was > to serve. For the discoursing language I would use English, which has special > merits for the treatment of logic. For the language discoursed about, I would > use the system of Existential Graphs throughout which has no equal for this > purpose. > I use the word “Sign” in the widest sense for any medium for the > communication or extension of a Form (or feature). Being medium, it is > determined by something, called its Object, and determines something, called > its Interpretant or Interpretand. But some distinctions have to be borne in > mind in order rightly to understand what is meant by the Object and by the > Interpretant. In order that a Form may be extended or communicated, it is > necessary that it should have been really embodied in a Subject independently > of the communication; and it is necessary that there should be another > subject in which the same form is embodied only in consequence of the > communication. The Form (and the Form is the Object of the Sign), as it > really determines the former Subject, is quite independent of the sign; yet > we may and indeed must say that the object of a sign can be nothing but what > that sign represents it to be. Therefore, in order to reconcile these > apparently conflicting truths, it is indispensable to distinguish the > immediate object from the dynamical object. ]] > > The one sentence that you quoted from this in your earlier post says that the > Form (which is communicated or extended by the Sign) is embodied in two > subjects, in one of them independently of the communication, and in the other > as a consequence of the communication. Your original question, “How is a > sign embodied in two different objects?”, does not make sense in that context. > > Gary f. > > } Wipe your glosses with what you know. [Finnegans Wake 304] { > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > Sent: 25-Oct-15 13:57 > To: Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > > > List: > > In a separate post, it is stated: > > Jerry, the sign is not embodied in two different objects, it is embodied in > two differentsubjects. Communication always involves at least two subjects; > even thought, according to Peirce, is dialogic. Any given thought is > “embodied” when it actually occurs to (or is initiated by) a living subject, > instead of being just a possibility. > > > This assertion (usage) is problematic and certainly in remote from my > interpretation of the meaning of the EP2:477. > > The dictionary definition of "embody" is the meaning CSP is referring to, I > presume (because of his background in logic and chemistry): > > Apple dictionary states: > > > "embody" as defined in a dictionary is the meaning that I refer to: > > > > embody |emˈbädē|verb ( embodies, embodying, embodied ) [ with obj. ]1 be an > expression of or give a tangible or visible form to (an idea, quality, > orfeeling): a team that embodies competitive spirit and skill.• provide (a > spirit) with a physical form.2 include or contain (something) as a > constituent part: the changes in law embodiedin the Freedom of Information > Act. > > Gary's usage is problematic. > CSP usage (as well as the dictionary's and mine) are consistent with usages > such as "atoms are embodied in molecules" > Or, propositional terms are embodied in propositional logic. > Or, "DNA is embodied as a chemical fact of biological reproductions" > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > On Oct 25, 2015, at 11:32 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: > > > List: > > On Oct 25, 2015, at 7:41 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > > it is necessary that it should have been really embodied in a Subject > independently of the communication; and it is necessary that there should be > another subject in which the same form is embodied only in consequence of the > communication. > > Are there two mysteries associated with EP2:477? > > What is the philosophical meaning of embodiment in this context? > > How is a sign embodied in two different objects? > > What is the meaningful distinction between "communication" in > > should have been really embodied in a Subject independently of the > communication > > and "communication" in > > same form is embodied only in consequence of the communication. > > > 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 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 .