> On Apr 22, 2016, at 9:37 AM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> > wrote: > > What might you mean by the term “master” meta-language?
I was thinking more in terms of Peirce’s concept of continuity. There’s a presumption there is a meta-language that can make things make sense now but I’m very skeptical of that. To the degree it matters it may be a regulatory concept akin to Peirce’s final interpretant to which all things are trending. That’s significant and then quickly gets into issues of infinities in mathematical proof. That of course was the big point of contention among the various foundations of mathematics back in the 20’s through 40’s. To what degree can an infinite number of steps be in a proof? > How would such an innovative concept relate to semiosis? I think it’s part and parcel of Peirce’s notion of semiosis. Yet, as finite beings who have not yet completed semiosis that means there are lots of implications. I’m not sure that is that innovative. Rather it’s part and parcel of how many of the post-structuralists responded to structuralism in terms of semiotics. > Imagine the meta-languages of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and > the clinical sciences. > > What would the number 13 mean in each meta-language? > What would the number 47 mean in each meta-language? > > In each meta-language, when is the product of 13 x 47 meaningful? > I’d put it more in terms of translation. People make a translation between the different sets of practices. Some of those translations prove successful. Over time the fruition of translation means the different areas have a common basis. During the period when translations are being made but are not agreed upon nor are there agreed verifcation practices (following the sense of meaning in the pragmatic maxim) then we don’t have a successful meta-language. When we have a successful meta-language it is only temporary since of course new things are entering into the fields and people are also translating between other fields. In this sense it is a process of determining practices such that verification can be done in a meaningful fashion. So to your examples, I’d simply say, how would we apply the maxim in order to potentially measure these things and make them meaningful?
----------------------------- 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 .
