Charles, List: I would like to offer a few remarks prompted by your interesting post over the weekend.
CP: 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. Helmut later brought up Peirce's entitative graphs, but when several of those are scribed on the sheet, the claim is merely that at least one of them is true, while all the others could be false. By contrast, in his existential graphs, everything scribed on the sheet is asserted to be (jointly) true. In fact, the *blank *sheet represents the inexhaustible continuum of true propositions that one could *potentially *assert, perhaps analogous to the "silence" of truth from a linguistic standpoint. Moreover, Peirce himself recognizes that deductively inferring one truth from another is *primitive *as represented in existential graphs by the scroll, while falsity is an additional concept that is *derived *upon recognizing that absurdity follows from some propositions as represented by a scroll with a blackened inner close. CSP: It was forced upon the logician’s attention that a certain development of reasoning was possible before, or as if before, the concept of *falsity *had ever been framed, or any recognition of such a thing as a false assertion had ever taken place. Probably every human being passes through such a grade of intellectual life, which may be called the state of paradisaical logic, when reasoning takes place but when the idea of falsity, whether in assertion or in inference, has never been recognized. But it will soon be recognized that not every assertion is true; and that once recognized, as soon as one notices that if a certain thing were true, every assertion would be true, one at once rejects the antecedent that leads to that absurd consequence. (R 669:18-19[16-17], 31 May 1911) As Peirce notes shortly after the quoted passage, as well as elsewhere in his writings, a simple cut or shaded area for negation comes about only when the blackened inner close of a scroll is imagined to be infinitesimally small. In at least that specific sense, while it may not quite be self-evident, I agree that "truth is prior to falsity." However, I must take issue with your statement today that "truth is prior to semiosis" and that this "is consistent with Peirce's thinking." On the contrary, for him truth is the *ideal end* of semiosis--that at which it aims, the ultimate opinion that *would *be affirmed by an infinite community as the result of infinite inquiry. Logic as semeiotic is a normative science precisely because it reveals how we *ought *to think, just in case adopting only true beliefs is our objective in the long run. CP: 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. In terms of Peirce's categories, we can certainly observe ways in which the present corresponds to 1ns, the past to 2ns, and the future to 3ns. In particular, this matches up directly with how in semiosis the sign itself corresponds to 1ns, its object to 2ns, and its interpretant to 3ns--not as metaphysical modes, but as the different correlates of a genuine triadic relation such that further analysis yields two objects and three interpretants in accordance with Robert Marty's podium diagram. "The object and the interpretant are thus merely the two correlates of the sign; the one being antecedent, the other consequent of the sign" (EP 2:410, 1907). Relative to the sign, the genuine (dynamical) object is in the past, while the genuine (final) and degenerate (dynamical) interpretants are in the future; but the degenerate (immediate) object and doubly degenerate (immediate) interpretant are present in the sign itself. Hence both semiosis and time conform to Gary Richmond's categorial vector of determination (2ns→1ns→3ns), reflecting how the entire universe is itself a sign, specifically an argument--"a vast representamen, a great symbol of God’s purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193, 1903). I explore this further, as well as how each of Gary's other five vectors can be applied to different aspects of time, in my recent "Temporal Synechism" paper (https://rdcu.be/b9xVm). - aspiration (2ns→3ns→1ns) - Our experience (2ns) of the past provides our knowledge (3ns) at the present, which is our basis for making conjectures (1ns) about the future. - process (1ns→3ns→2ns) - At any assignable date, the universe is constantly evolving (3ns) from being utterly indeterminate (1ns) in the infinite past toward being utterly determinate (2ns) in the infinite future. - analysis (3ns→2ns→1ns) - The continuity of time (3ns as reality) involves the continuity of reacting things (2ns as persistence) and the continuity of possible qualities (1ns as diversity). - representation (3ns→1ns→2ns) - The constitution of being is an inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of real but indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which are actualized (2ns). - order (1ns→2ns→3ns) - The temporal sequence of such "events of creation" consists of spontaneity (1ns) followed by reaction (2ns) and then habit-taking (3ns). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Nov 22, 2020 at 3:07 PM Charles Pyle <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 >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
