On 12/13/15 9:38 AM, Franklin Ransom wrote:
Matt wrote:
EP2.227: "perceptual judgments contain general elements," whereas
percepts don't. So, if you have a general type (legisign) in mind
then you have a perceptual judgment. So, smoke, as understood as
being a type, e.g., relating to other instances of smoke, is a
perceptual judgment.
Smoke, qua type, is not a perceptual judgment. A perceptual judgment
is not the general element, but includes the general as its predicate.
I meant that the token of a type 'smoke' is a perceptual judgment. I
hoped that would've been understood from the context, e.g., my clause
"relating to /other instances/ of smoke," as an instance is a token, not
a generality. As usual, I could've written it better. Then I continued
to give my argument for the fact that there can be no token in
perception without that token being of a type, concluding with "If this
is correct then all perceptual judgments are dicisigns."Let me add
bracketed insertions to my first paragraph to clarify what I meant:
EP2.227: "perceptual judgments contain general elements," whereas
percepts don't. So, if you have a general type (legisign) in mind then
you have a perceptual judgment. So, [the token of] smoke [in your mind],
as understood as being a type, e.g., relating to other instances of
smoke, is a perceptual judgment.
I continued...
Any dichotomy made within a percept is a perceptual judgment. One
very basic dichotomy is 'me and not me'. The judgment 'x is not
me' is judging x to be the general class of 'not me'. The judgment
'x is not y' is to generalize x by thinking it belongs to the
general class of not y. For example, let's say 'x is not y' is
'the dark part* of my percept is different from the light part';
this is a way of typifying x, the dark side, as 'not y', 'not of
the same type as the light part.'
In merely seperating the tone of dark from the tone of light, the
tone of dark becomes a token of the type 'not the tone of light'.
I can't imagine there can be a token that's not also a type of
this most basic kind. If this is correct then all perceptual
judgments are dicisigns.
Your question about how the categories fit into this analysis is a
good one.
* Here I mean the word 'dark' as only indicating the mere tone
(qualisign), i.e., before 'dark' is typified with other instances
of dark. Similarly, 'x is not y' etc., need not be verbalized
propositions. It seems to me that this basic level of dicisign
precedes the sinsign, in that 'x', 'the dark tone' only comes as a
result of the distinction (this basic level generalization)
Matt
-----------------------------
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 .
