(This post was found in my email "Draft Box”. This response was drafted on Dec. 13 th, 2015.
Franklin, Matt, List: Some short responses to your concerns and further questions are raised. On Dec 12, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > Jerry, list, > > Well, I'm glad that someone agrees with me, as far as the statement went. > > Jerry, I think that you raise some good questions. Though, I must admit I'm > not entirely sure what a couple of your terms mean, such as 'coupling' and > 'grammar'. As for 'unit', I'll guess you mean something like what the > original meaning of 'atom' meant, as something basic and indivisible from > which other, more complex things can be built up out of. The terms "coupling" and "grammar" are used in the senses of CSP. Coupling referring to CSP's paper on the logic of Copula. Grammar in the typical sense that that one may find in the classical text by Otto Jesperson, The Philosophy of Grammar or in CSP's writings. "Unit" being a term of one-ness, such as the 7 basic units of physics (mass, distance, time, temperature, light, electricity and "mole". Or integers as numbers. Equally applicable to the basic units of chemistry (92 different logical structures with names) and biology (cells, etc). Take you pick for meaningfulness of the term for you and for your personal philosophy. > > I've decided to answer the questions in the order reverse to the order in > which they were presented. > > Do you consider this part - whole coupling to be "mereological in character"? > > I'm not sure what that means, but since it's a part-whole relation, and > mereology is a study concerned with such relations, it would seem almost > tautological that it is "mereological in character". But there are different > and competing theories in mereology, and I don't want to be taken as > supporting any one of them specifically. But, you wrote: Going beyond the part of the real that we perceive, and grasping it as a whole, requires the whole work of understanding. This is what motivated my questions: In what sense are your using "whole-ness" where the suffix -ness infers changing an adjective into a noun - in the grammatical sense of the wholeness of the smoke or the sense of the wholeness of interpretation? > > Is smoke a unit? Is a precept a unit? > > I take it you meant "percept", not precept. I would say it depends on the > context; in one context, we could take percepts as our basic elements, or > units, while in another context of analysis we might try to break it down > more, as presumably someone in experimental psychology might try to break > down sense impressions to the physical operations of the body and the thing > experienced. Similarly with smoke, if we just wanted to talk about the matter > in terms of commonly understood objects and signs, then it could be > considered a unit; but obviously, the chemist could try to break it down more > into the specific analysis of gases, and down to the atoms, of which the > smoke is composed, and so on further to particles and such. Is it correct to read this paragraph that for the term "smoke", one can assign an arbitrary number of different percepts? And hence, the each different percept would lead to a different perceptual judgment? In other words, in this specific case, the premises implicit to the scenario can lead to an arbitrary number of arguments that are consistent with symbols and legisigns? > > If "whole work of understanding." implies a coupling of external events with > internal processes, then what is the nature of the grammar the generates the > coupling of the parts of the whole? > > This is where the meaning of 'coupling' worries me, but I'll suppose it's > something like correspondence. Also not sure what grammar is supposed to be > in this context. By "whole work of understanding", I meant the introduction > of a concept, whether in perceptual judgment or in an abduction, for > explaining the phenomenon (percept); which concept, when analyzed into > possible further interactions with the object of the percept, and then put to > experimental test in practical conduct, proves helpful for interacting with > the object of the percept. So the whole process of semiosis, up to the > following out of a scientific inquiry into the object, may be required to > grasp the (whole) object. Put in terms of correspondence, I suppose that the > fact that the object responds to our interactions in the way we predict is > what reveals that there is a correspondence between our concept of the object > and the object as it is in itself. The word "coupling" comes from the Gk / L. roots. It requires a minimum of a pair to be yoked together. (But not an ordered pair as in category theory or set theory.) What do you wish to express when you think of "correspondence" in this context of yoking? > > I'm not sure how to relate that to "the nature of the grammar the generates > the coupling of the parts of the whole". Part and whole here were originally > about the object as immediate and the object as dynamical, but relating what > is going on between external events and internal processes (i.e., > perception?), is a different kind of relating. Perhaps (and this is simply a > suggestion), we might think of there being the real object, which has a part > of it involved in perception, and there being the mind, which has a part of > it involved in perception, and these two (the real object and the mind) are > themselves parts of a semiosis, and so the 'grammar' that would ultimately be > appropriate would be that offered by semiotic. > > What is the nature of the coupling between the smoke and the "whole" of the > experience? > > Hmm, that's a good question. Partly it depends upon what is meant by > experience, and whether one subscribes to the doctrine of immediate > perception. If one includes perception and conception, and what is perceived > and conceived, then smoke would be a part of the experience; and with respect > to perception, it would be a part of smoke, but with respect to conception it > would be the whole of the smoke. But, it is good to recognize that in such > case, we can think of experience in a somewhat flexible way, such that we > could consider the initial experience as one of perception only, then the > experience of seeing the smoke and coming to recognize it as smoke, and then > the experience later of interacting with the fire that is the source of the > smoke; or we could lump these altogether as one long experience, and include > in it any other interactions we ever have or could have of perceiving the > smoke. Of course, even in the latter case, the smoke and the experience of it > will not be the same thing, because there is always us, the ones experiencing > the smoke, either as individuals or as a community, that are also always > involved in the experience. So the smoke remains part of the experience, not > the whole of it; while whether we consider the smoke as experienced in part, > or as a whole, depends on how experience is considered in a given context of > analysis. Would you be thinking of a triad: reception, perception, conception? Cheers Jerry > > -- Franklin > > ---------------------------------------------- > > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com > <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com>> wrote: > List, Frank: > > On Dec 12, 2015, at 11:16 AM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > >> That effect of the smoke is in some sense part of what it is to be smoke. >> Going beyond the part of the real that we perceive, and grasping it as a >> whole, requires the whole work of understanding. But while the percept is >> not "smoke itself", i.e. is not the whole of the object, it is nevertheless >> as much a part of smoke as it is a part of the perceiver. > > While I concur with these sentences, I would ask further of your views: > > What is the nature of the coupling between the smoke and the "whole" of the > experience? > > If "whole work of understanding." implies a coupling of external events with > internal processes, then what is the nature of the grammar the generates the > coupling of the parts of the whole? > > Is smoke a unit? Is a precept a unit? > > Do you consider this part - whole coupling to be "mereological in character"? > > Just curious. > > 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 .
