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 .
