Dear list: rather ironic that the ultimate, immutable aim- the one that should accord with a free development of the agent's own esthetic quality- takes on the form of a carrot, no?
Best, Jerry R On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Claudio Guerri <claudiogue...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mein lieber Helmut, List, > again answer between the lines with >>> > (this was taught to me by T.A.Sebeok just at the beginning of e-mails) > > Helmut Raulien escribió el 27/03/2017 a las 13:14: > > Claudio, List, > So it is a bit paradoxical: On one hand we should be aware, that we are > carrot-chasing donkeys, on the other hand we should not abandon the carrot > chasing projects, inquiry. And we must respect other donkeys who are > chasing different carrots. > > >>> EXACTLY!!! with no offense to donkeys and carrots... > and with no offense to thousands of years of inquiery in which all > scholars where traying to chase the DO-carrot. > > And, for not thinking that there are alternative carrots, we should > believe that there is only one carrot of each kind, that is to say too that > the carrots exist. > Best, > Helmut > > >>> I could agree with this, if you say "one carrot of each kind" but only > for not more than 5 minutes... > Let as hope that we are able to THINK seriously. > All the best > Dein > CLaudio > > > > > 27. März 2017 um 14:11 Uhr > "Claudio Guerri" <claudiogue...@gmail.com> <claudiogue...@gmail.com> > > Edwina, Helmut, List, > I think that a very good aspect of Peirce's proposal is that there is no > 'THE TRUTH' anymore. > Signs can only construct other signs (images, texts, speeches,etc.), > perhaps, sometimes, "a more developed sign" (CP 2.228). > But never a definitive 'final explanation'... and this is very good for > us: humans!!! > So, there is no sense for 'religious' fights, because everything is only a > little aspect a bigger whole, which can be considered the 'Dynamic Object'. > We don't need to "achieve a true representation of a fact", because it IS > "changing all the time". > It is enough if we can figure out a good explanation for our time, hoping > that we will enlarge the concept tomorrow. > Art, Architecture, Design in general is only possible because of that > fact: we can only construct an Immediate Object, one after an other... > endlessly... > and that is exactly the chance to exist, and to be artists, architects, > designers, composers, poets, etc., etc... > if the inquiry don't need anymore to be endless... then, we will be also > definitively out of work. > > To Edwina: "We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic object > or our interactions with it." (quote) > You will probably agree that we can only change the Immediate Object > we can never grasp anything of the Dynamic Object without transforming it > at the same time in an Immediate Object > the Dynamic Object is like "the carrot in front of the donkey" (I don't > know if this is also an English expression), we will never reach it... > happily... > > All the best > Claudio > > > Helmut Raulien escribió el 26/03/2017 a las 15:12: > > Claudio, Edwina, List, > I wonder whether the two kinds of truth are exactly the same as the two > kinds of object. When two people talk about a common concept of a fact, > then the dynamical object is the common concept as it exists outside of the > talk (the sign). But this dynamical object is not the truth-as-the-fact. > Though it is the truth-as-another-fact: The fact that the common concept > exists and is like it is. > The common-concept-as-a-fact changes, even due to this one sign. > So it is hard to achieve a true representation of a fact which is changing > all the time. I guess, that the only facts or dynamical objects that donot > change, are metaphysical laws, like axioms, or deductions that have these > axioms for premisses. > That is why I doubt the theory by Peirce, that truth or a final > interpretant can always be achieved or even just approached by (perhaps > even endless) inquiry: It is like a crawling lizard hunting a leaping frog. > Besides changing facts, and metaphysical (eternal) facts, there is a third > kind of fact: A fact that is an event-as-it-has-happened, or something that > has been in a certain state in the past. > I think, that also this kind of truth cannot always be achieved by endless > inquiry, because there might be information missing due to non-complete > documentation. > So I guess, that Peirces truth theory about endless inquiry merely applies > to metaphysical facts. > Or when the inquiry goes much faster than the change of fact, or when the > documentation is complete... > Best, > Helmut > > 26. März 2017 um 16:48 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > > > The FACT that the content of the immediate and dynamic object are > different indeed 'makes us just humans' but I'd say that it makes us > 'humans'. That is, I'd remove the 'just' from the phrase. That means that > our cognitive capacity, our capacity to learn, to 'have knowledge' means > that we, with that capacity for reasoning and analysis, can think about > that dynamic object; can think about our immediate object - and, the three > interpretants. > > Without such a capacity, we would be unable to do anything other than > mechanically react. We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic > object or our interactions with it. > > Edwina Taborsky > -- > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Sun 26/03/17 10:22 AM , Claudio Guerri claudiogue...@gmail.com sent: > > List, > forgive me for jumping in only very shortly > but... > I agree that that there can not be "alternative facts" > but for sure, there are only alternative interpretations. > And both concepts of immediate and dynamic object are a very clear > explanation of that difference that makes as just humans... > All the best > Claudio > > Helmut Raulien escribió el 25/03/2017 a las 20:05: > > List, > In common language the word "truth" is used for two different things: The > fact and it´s representation (the truth independent of observation, and the > truth as represented- correct representatrion). In philosophy it mostly is > only used for the representation, and means a correct representation of a > fact. > With one exception: Having looked at Wikipedia: "Truth": I would say, that > the redundancy theory uses the term for the fact, otherwise "truth" would > not be redundant (tautology, ok.). > I would say, that "truth" in the sense of the fact is semantically > redundant, because a fact is one of the things of which there can only be > one. I think, there is only one person in the world who claims that there > may be "alternative facts". > > Examples: > > "It is the truth, that Alice and Bob have married": "Truth" means the > fact, and is redundant as a term, because you might as well just say: > "Alice and Bob have married". > > "Paul told the truth when he said that Alice and Bob had married": Fact, > redundant, because to tell means to speak about. "About" is the bridge > between representation and fact, adresses the fact. The sentence can be > said like: "Alice and Bob have married, and Paul has told that". > Though the redundancy is not complete regarding the connotations: The > first version of the statement implies the suggestion, that Paul does not > always adress facts correctly (tell the truth), which the second version > does not imply. > > "Paul spoke the truth when he said that Alice and Bob had married": > representation, not redundant. The truth here is not the fact, but what > Paul spoke. > > Anyway, I guess it is very dangerous, that there are two completely > different things which may so easily be conflated and confused, because > they share the same term. Eg. the said person who claims alternative facts > is a danger. > > I guess, that language in general is somewhat blurry about the distinction > between representation and the represented. But in the case of the term > "truth" it is a major problem, leading to confusion and misconceptions, > even ideologies: Ideologies work with forged "facts", and are only able to > do so, because the term "truth" is not clear. If there were two words for > the two things (representation and represented), then it would be much more > difficult to establish myths and conspiracy theories, which both are > necessary for ideologies. > > I had thought about proposing to call the two types of "truth" dynamical > and immediate truth, but this is confusing, I guess, because a dynamical > object may be an immediate truth. Or "trueness" and "truth"? I dont know. > > Best, > helmut > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- 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 . > > > -- > > *Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri* > Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo > Universidad de Buenos Aires > Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270 > 1427 BUENOS AIRES > Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895 > Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123 > E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com <claudiogue...@fibertel.com.ar> > > > > -- > > *Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri* > Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo > Universidad de Buenos Aires > Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270 > 1427 BUENOS AIRES > Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895 > Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123 > E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com <claudiogue...@fibertel.com.ar> > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
