Dan, list
I suggest that Sequoia's development of a syllabary in the 19th c,
for Cherokee - was quite different from the other written language
and mnemonic methods used by large populations in earlier times.
Sequoia was aware of the written language used by settlers - and
developed one for his language.
I'd suggest that the other written forms emerged as communal efforts
but that's as far as one can go with any certainty. The point is, it
isn't needed in small populations and only needed in large settled
[some form of agriculture] societies.
As you say - it only emerged a few times in world history - among
peoples separate from each other; i.e., no diffusion - and I feel
that it is related to the need for some kind of mnemonic device and a
different perspective on history - and authority.
Edwina
On Tue 14/08/18 4:36 AM , Daniel L Everett danleveret...@gmail.com
sent:
Written language has only been invented a handful of times in world
history. It was never invented for English, for example, but adapted
from a pre-existing system invented by others.
It was invented separately by Sequoia, for his language - Cheokee.
Not a large civilization. Sequoia’s syllabary was an intellectual
breakthrough of the first rank.
Dan
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 13, 2018, at 21:27, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
I certainly don't want to promote or support Derrida, - I could
never stand him, and much preferred Mikhail Bakhtin's focus on
language - back when I was myself studying language and the nature of
oral and literate cultures. BUT - I think it's a huge misunderstanding
to think that Derrida's promoting of Writing meant that he placed
writing as emerging prior to the spoken language!
Even if one were not referring to a phonetic language but instead
to a non-phonetic one, such as Chinese - even then, It is illogical
to suppose that the written form preceded the spoken form. Even if
one refers to the written form for the numbers of one, two, three in
Chinese [one horizontal line, two lines, three lines].
At any rate, written language, to my understanding, only emerges in
large settled populations, i.e., ones that use some form of
agriculture and require some kind of mnemonic device. And that -,
i.e., large agricultural populations - only emerged about 10,000
years ago.
What I think Derrida is referring to - in his dense, mystical
writings - is that writing represents the structure of the Sign in
its orignary, essentialist nature - in its most Truthful nature [akin
to the Final Interpretant?] and that the articulated Sign [Saussurian:
signifier and signified] 'fight' with each other in Writing; they have
a relationship of difference,[ Though he does reference Peirce ] But
that Writing sets up a conflict between the signifier and signified
[Object and Interpretant] such that they cannot reconcile. How does
one arrive at Truth - only be deconstructing this 'differerance'...
And that's as far as I'll go since I could never stand him....My
only point here is that it's a misunderstanding to think that he
thought that writing preceded speech!
Edwina
On Mon 13/08/18 3:46 PM , Eugene Halton eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu
[2] sent:
I also agree. To twist Ernst Haeckel's saying: ontology does not
recapitulate philology, contra Derrida. Gene H
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018, 3:20 PM Mary Libertin wrote:
I agree. With you, and with my interpretation of Sternfeldt.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 3:18 PM Daniel L Everett wrote:
Derrida is completely wrong. Both phylogenetically and
ontogenetically. Besides doing field research on Amazonian languages
that lack any form of writing, I have written extensively on language
evolution. I have heard Derrida’s unfortunate claim before.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307386120/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0307386120
[3]
https://www.amazon.com/How-Language-Began-Humanitys-Invention/dp/0871407957
[4]
Dan Everett
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 13, 2018, at 16:40, Mary Libertin wrote:
Jon A S and list,
I find this discussion interesting. I have no thesis, instead just
some observations for possible discussion.
Peirce in EP 2:488, as previously quoted, writes that the
tinge/tone/mark precedes the token/type. Are three senses possibly
being alluded to: sight, sound, and touch?
In regard to the sound and touch, I recall Peirce’s use of the
utterer and the graphist.
The latter two suggest more agency. Saussure discussed the
signifier/signified relation in terms of the phoneme and speech, and
rarely the grapheme and writing. Speech can not be removed or
erased, and it assumes permanence with quote marks.
Derrida argued the grapheme preceded the phoneme, the written vs the
spoken. How relevant that is remains to be seen. Frederick Sternfelt
in the title of his insightful book _Diagrammatology_ makes implicit
reference to Derrida’s _Grammatology_, whose work is given short
shrift. It may be that preceed-ence is not an issue with the
decisign, or not relevant.
I do recall Peirce using tinge with regard to existential graphs,
and tinges perhaps served a purpose, perhaps with reference to
layering and juxtaposition in logic, that could not achieved with the
spoken or written.
It may be possible that Peirce ultimately chose mark rather than
tinge or tone because it is more permanent.
I apologize for lacking a thesis and any mistakes, and I look
forward to your responses.
Mary Libertin
On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
John S., List:
JFS: I believe that the subject line blurs too many issues.
It is a direct quote from Peirce (EP 2:303; 1904), and the point of
the thread is to explicate it.
JFS: Since mark is his final choice, I'll use mark instead of
tinge or tone.
In the referenced passage, Peirce stated, "I dare say some of my
former names are better than those I now use" (EP 2:488; 1908). In
fact, less than two weeks earlier, he had asked Lady Welby
specifically about Tone vs. Mark (SS 83; 1908); and if I remember
right--I do not have a copy of her reply--she found Tone preferable
because a tone of voice is a paradigmatic example. Peirce also used
Tone in what I think is one of his clearest passages about this
division of Signs ( CP 4.537; 1906).
JFS: General principle: In any occurrence of semiosis, there is
always a perceptible mark that is interpreted by some mind or
quasi-mind as a token of some type.
This may be a case of hair-splitting on my part, but I would suggest
instead that in any Instance of a Sign, the Tone is the character (or
set of characters) by which the interpreting Quasi-mind recognizes
the Sign-Replica to be an individual Token of the Type. Acquaintance
with the system of Signs (Essential Information) is necessary and
sufficient for this. It is analogous to the role of the Immediate
Object as that by which the interpreting Quasi-mind identifies the
Dynamic Object of the Sign, for which Collateral Experience
(Experiential Information) is necessary and sufficient (cf. CP 8.179,
EP 2:494; 1909).
As a Possible, the Tone can only have an Immediate
Interpretant--"its peculiar Interpretability before it gets any
Interpreter." As an Existent, the Token is what produces the Dynamic
Interpretant--"that which is experienced in each act of
Interpretation." As a Necessitant, only the Type has a Final
Interpretant--"the one Interpretative result to which every
Interpreter is destined to come if the Sign is sufficiently
considered," which corresponds to the correct Habit of Interpretation
(Substantial Information). In other words, "The Immediate
Interpretant is an abstraction, consisting in a Possibility. The
Dynamical Interpretant is a single actual event. The Final
Interpretant is that toward which the actual tends" (SS 111; 1909).
JFS: In summary, semiosis turns real possibilities into real
actualities.
I agree, and would add that semiosis also governs Real actualities
in accordance with Real regularities.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [5] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [6]
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 1:15 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
I believe that the subject line blurs too many issues.
In various writings over the years, Peirce wrote about
real possibilities. He also wrote about laws as real.
In writing about modality, he distinguished three universes:
the possible, the actual, and the necessitated. Actual
existence is just one of the three ways of being real.
He also distinguished logical possibility and necessity
from real possibility and necessity. A theory is logically
possible if it's consistent by itself. It's a real possibility
if it's also consistent with the laws of nature.
Given the above, apply the principles to signs. For that,
consider Peirce's Letters to Lady Welby in 1908, in which
he wrote about signs and the three universes (EP 2:478-480).
In EP 2:488, he wrote that the triad Potisign (possible sign) /
actisign (sign in act) / and famisign (familiar or general sign)
might be called (tinge or tone or mark) / token / type. Since
mark is his final choice, I'll use mark instead of tinge or tone.
General principle: In any occurrence of semiosis, there is
always a perceptible mark that is interpreted by some mind or
quasi-mind as a token of some type.
Prior to semiosis, the perceptible thing exists in actuality.
But it's only a possible mark. It doesn't become an actual mark
until it is sensed by some mind or quasi-mind. Then as soon as
it's recognized, the actual mark becomes an actual token of some
type.
In summary, semiosis turns real possibilities into real actualities.
John --
null
-----------------------------
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 [7] .
--
null
-----------------------------
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 [8] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [9] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [10] .
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3]
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0307386120/ref=dbs_a_w_dp_0307386120
[4]
https://www.amazon.com/How-Language-Began-Humanitys-Invention/dp/0871407957
[5] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[6] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[7] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
[8]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[9]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[10] 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 .
