Matt, list, 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.
This is still a poor way of stating the matter. The token is not a type; but your statement, as worded, suggests that it is. There is smoke as a token, and there is smoke as a type. The token and the type are not the same thing. The token, in being related to other tokens, is not thereby a type. The token is an instance of a type, and the type is what refers to all the instances. A token, rightly, only refers to the 'here and now', and not to other tokens like it, which are other 'here and now's'. But your point is taken: "I meant that the token of a type 'smoke' is a perceptual judgment." -- Franklin ---------------------------------------------- On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:17 AM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
