Hi Helmut,

Yes, as you surmise. I think it is reasonable to take this as a refinement of 
Spencer-Brown. Let me explain it a little further.

The space in which language grows is a kind of gravitational field where truth 
is the center from which language arises in the form of marks each of which is 
an elaboration of some prior, and each mark is a sign of falsity. Thus the 
structure of language arises layer by layer as a structure of falsity. The more 
marked, the more false. And it is a gravitational space because the false tends 
by its nature to fall apart and reveal the underlying, whether it is only a 
relatively less false underlying layer, or the ultimate underlying layer of 
truth itself. Because of the nature of the relation between truth and falsity, 
falsity must be continually reinforced, repaired, defended, etc. or it will 
fall apart.

In terms of markedness, truth is unmarked and unmarkable. Truth is silent. 
Every element of language arises from some prior by elaborating on the prior. 
Thus the first event in the arising of language is the production of a sound 
that interrupts silence and in doing so creates the derivative ground on which 
language is elaborated. The most unmarked vowel, the most open vowel, the most 
sonorant vowel is a. So in theory we can hypothecate a as the first mark which 
establishes the space of language as deviant from truth.

Both truth and its manifestation as silence are actual continuities. Sound is a 
kind of false continuity. It sounds like a continuity. But it has a beginning 
and an end, whereas silence was already there before the sound begins, and it 
will be there after the sound ends. Silence is even there during the sound: 
sound consists of a rapid sequence of pulses of energy; between each of the 
pulses of energy is a brief gap that has the characteristics of silence, i.e. 
the absence of sound. Sound is a kind of continuity of discontinuity. You can 
clearly see this in a sonographic analysis of sound. And here we can also see 
how it is that the very ground of language is deviant from sound, seeking to 
interrupt the continuity of truth by means of a faux continuity, and thus is 
essentially a sign of falsity.

Given this fundamental ground,  the next logical step would be to mark the 
vocalic ground continuity by its opposite, that is, to interrupt the 
continuity, which is done in language by a consonant resulting in such basic 
infantile linguistic forms as ama, aba, aka, ata, etc. Driven by factors of 
timing these are often morphed into mama, baba, kaka, tata, etc. From here 
phonologically the vowel space is further divided into at least three elements 
naturally occupying the extreme margins of the vocalic space resulting in a 
vowel inventory of a, i, u. And of course these can be further divided. 
Consonants are similarly elaborated by the logic of opposition. Roman Jakobson 
provided the classical explanation of this process of development here:

Jakobson, Roman. 1968.  Child Language Aphasia and Phonological Universals, 
Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 72, Moutoun, The Hague.

And I reframed his explanation in the context of Peirce’s theory of signs in 
“Wild Language” which can be found here: https://umich.academia.edu/CharlesPyle

Charles Pyle

From: Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de>
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 4:25 PM
To: Charles Pyle <char...@pyle.tv>
Cc: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic

Charles,
wow, interesting! I think about it. By first glance it seems to me like a 
linguistic elaboration of Spencer-Brown. Do all polarities come from a marked 
starting point, looking out for an opposite in unmarked space?
I apologize to everybody "conservative". Please see my use of the term confined 
within the example I gave, and not generalized to its political meaning. Or 
replaced with "conventional" or "formerly conventional".

Best, Helmut


22. November 2020 um 22:06 Uhr
 "Charles Pyle" <char...@pyle.tv<mailto:char...@pyle.tv>>
wrote:
Helmut,

Speaking as a linguist, I must point out that the view of language you take in 
the paragraph I quote below is profoundly mistaken.

--begin quote from Helmut----------
The conservative concept of sexuality is male-female, so binary, like 
black-white, hot-cold, right-wrong, up-down, open-closed, well-unwell. When 
somebody claims for him*herself to belong to a third gender, conservative 
people see, that this way their world is made more complicated and harder to 
grasp, they feel a loss of control, and blame this person for deliberately 
being the reason for that.
--end quote from Helmut-----------

To begin with, the examples you cite exemplify the particular kind of 
asymmetric binary opposition, in technical linguistic terms is called the logic 
of ‘markedness’, of which the entire structure of language is comprised from 
bottom to top: phonology morphology, syntax, semantics. For example in 
phonology we find the same type of asymmetric opposition in the pairs p-b, p-f, 
p-t, t-d, etc. Taking p-f as a specific example, it is a well-tested language 
universal that (put in non-technical terms) if a language as f then it has p, 
but a language can have p without f. The effects of such a claim can be 
manifest in the order in which children learn language (they learn p before f), 
the order in which language loss takes place in aphasia, etc., the order in 
which language is recovered in the recovery from aphasia, and the phonology 
systems of language. An example illustrating the latter type of evidence can be 
seen Philippine languages, which do have p but not f. When Filipinos who are 
not also not native speakers of English try to pronounce English word with f 
like ‘fish’ they would say ‘pis’. And they would pronounce Filipino as Pilipino.

So it is incorrect to characterize the desire to preserve the logic of the word 
pairs you cite as particularly conservative in a political sense, or in terms 
of an underlying moral anxiety in relation to sexual deviance. If you use 
language, you use this logic. And it is not just an arbitrary characteristic of 
these few pairs of words. You can’t just fudge around with the logic of a few 
pairs of words without attacking the fabric of language itself. Thus the 
resistance to loss of control you talk about should be seen as conservative in 
relation to language itself, not conservative in relation to politics or 
morality.

Furthermore, one must be aware the logic of opposition in language is 
asymmetric. All oppositions in language are asymmetric. What is in play here is 
not just asymmetry in relation to concepts that have come to be politically or 
socially sensitive such as male-female, black-white, right-wrong, open-closed, 
etc., but in relation to all concepts and structures of language. To 
illustrate, I assume I can take it as self-evident that the opposition between 
one and many, manifest in grammar as singular-plural is asymmetric: singular is 
first and plural is second. When you start counting, you must begin with 1 and 
then you can get to 2. If you have two eggs in a basket, then you have one egg 
in the basket, but the reverse is not true. And in keeping with this 
self-evident character of numerology there has been found to be a universal of 
language, an empirical claim supported by lots of evidence, that if a language 
has grammatical singular and plural, then the singular is unmarked and the 
plural is marked. (And, by the way, if that language has also dual, it is twice 
marked in relation to singuilar.) That is, some piece of form is added to a 
word to mark it as plural e.g. dog vs dog+s, tree vs tree+s. Similarly, while 
many people would not regard it as self-evident that truth is prior to falsity, 
I hold that it is, and have argued as such in various publications. In keeping 
with the order of this asymmetry truth is unmarked and falsity is marked. 
Similarly, down is first and up is second. Similarly, happy is first and sad is 
second. Thus we can say ‘unhappy’ but not ‘unsad.’ Similarly well and unwell.

People often cite right vs left as an example of symmetric opposition, but 
language, generically, has presupposed that right is first and left is second. 
Numerically, most people are right handed. And in many cultures left-handed 
people are punished for learning to write with their left hand, sometimes 
forced to learn to write with their right hand. And in many cultures left is 
explicitly associated with evil or dirtiness and right with cleanness and good.

There are also cases where the asymmetry goes contrary to what is 
conventionally believed. For example, the conventional view holds that the past 
is first, the present it next, and then comes the future. But to the contrary 
language presupposes that the present is first and the past is second. This 
contrary view does make sense, however, in that we experience things first in 
the present, and then they become past. We take a picture in the present, but 
it instantly becomes past. In keeping with this experiential view the language 
universal is that the past is marked in relation to the present. Thus look vs 
look+ed.

Obviously the male-female and black-white oppositions, and indeed the 
true-false opposition, have become the locus of a raging power struggle in 
western society. In service of this struggle we might want to try to modify the 
logic and semantics of these fundamental pairs of words, but it would not help 
that endeavor to suppose such changes are merely going to be resisted by 
political or morally conservative people. The resistance is embodied in the 
very fabric of language. Perhaps we need to deconstruct language itself, but 
you cannot just deconstruct a few pairs of words without attacking the logic 
underlying them.

Charles Pyle
https://umich.academia.edu/CharlesPyle





From: Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de<mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de>>
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 11:00 AM
To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>>
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic

List,

As Peircean semiotics is a three-valued logic, I think it bears relevance for 
the discussion about multiple-valued logic. But I have the impression, that 
multipleness is sometimes explained away by just adding a "maybe" to the values 
"yes" and "no" (e.g. Lukasiewicz). I think, this is wrong. I think, 
multipleness comes from more than one dimension of (binary) polarities being 
relevant for one problem. If a problem is analysed by more than one dimension 
of polarities, it can be shown, that the logic, the problem depends on, is tri- 
or more- adic. According to Peirce and others, a more-than-three-adicity can be 
reduced to three-adicities, but a three-adicity cannot always, or can hardly 
ever, be reduced to binarities.

I would say, when different polarities create a triadicity, which from then on 
cannot be reduced back to them, this is an emergence.

A polarity is logically an easy thing to grasp, and a traidicity is not. So 
this emergence often brings with it a feeling of loss of control, and anger. 
This is an explanation for homophobia and transphobia:

The conservative concept of sexuality is male-female, so binary, like 
black-white, hot-cold, right-wrong, up-down, open-closed, well-unwell. When 
somebody claims for him*herself to belong to a third gender, conservative 
people see, that this way their world is made more complicated and harder to 
grasp, they feel a loss of control, and blame this person for deliberately 
being the reason for that.

The reason for sexuality being not binary anymore is, that in an open society 
there are more than one polarity-dimensions now. One dimension is the 
biological male-female distinction (the sex), another dimension is the social 
dimension (the gender): What sex do I want to be, and the third dimension is 
the attraction: Which sex am I attracted to for having as a partner. A fourth 
dimension is, do I care about sex at all, or am rather tired of the whole topic.

I just have mentioned this example due to its obvious relevance in contemporary 
discussions, but there are many more examples in nowadays culture, e.g. the 
rightism-leftism-discussion. Today it is not so easy anymore to distinguish 
between what is rightist and what leftist, like it was in former decades.

Well, I just wanted to propose looking at all these things sensibly, with using 
adicy-models and the concept of emergence and irreducibility of triads. I have 
the feeling, that a triadic view is opposed to digitalism, which, with its 
binary 1-0-distinction in the small transistor-scale just creates polarities, 
fiter bubbles, hatred, in the large scales of communication too.

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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, 
send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to 
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with no subject, and with the 
sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE 
PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

Reply via email to