Stephen, John: > On Apr 14, 2018, at 11:57 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Words, as noted, are often a frail reed but they have a purpose.
This is a very clever phrase; I like it very much. Do you think that all of academic philosophy (not just the ones that post here) uses all words in this sense? That being said (with a bit of sarcasm :-) ), I think you missed the intent of my message so I would ask that you broaden the scope of your considerations. I start from my lifelong experience that human communication is an extraordinarily difficult topic to discuss, in part because the huge variety of experiences of individuals with different educational backgrounds. The point is that human cultures have constructed many many many symbol systems. Semiotics applies to BOTH natural external signs and to symbols externalized by purposeful human intent. Consider the notation for music. This symbol system is a very important to many individuals in our cultural. One reference system for a musical notation is often an mathematical object, an octave and repetitions of octaves. Another reference system is a measure. Compositions into phrases, etc. Both reference systems invoke the notion of time. I think that most would agree that this is a very effective symbol systems for communicating information. It is pragmatically successful despite the linguistic ambiguity of the two temporal reference systems in the notation. Are Inferences from the musical notation to mathematics, physics, sound perception and emotions logical? If so, how is the temporal ambiguity interpreted? Since so many different symbol systems are used in so many different disciplines, an interpreter of a symbolic message must have some knowledge of the symbol system before one can make propositions or sorites that are consistent within the symbol system. In other words, the notation for a particular symbol system is internally logically consistent as a whole, not merely a few strings of symbols (that is, parts of whole.) A symphonic score makes sense to the composer as whole, even though it may be gibberish to an engineer or philosopher or theologian! Numerous other examples of the part-whole (mereological) relationships in symbolic meanings are readily apparent. But, part-whole relationships are only meaningful IF the interpreter is competent in that species of symbols (language.) I hope this has some meaning to you… 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 .
