Dear Jacob, I am very sorry to hear this. Along with John, I send my condolences.
I spoke with your father in a couple of very long phone calls about 2 years ago, when I was beginning my research on Peirce. He was extremely helpful, generous, and kind. All my best to your family, Dan Everett > On Jan 15, 2021, at 5:06 PM, Charles Pyle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello Everyone, > > I’m writing on behalf of my father Charles Pyle. He passed away on 1/12 due > to COVID. We have seen that he was fairly active in this list and wanted to > let everyone know – my sincere apologies for the group email to the entire > list and letting you know in this manner. We are having a small ceremony on > Sunday at 2pm which we will livestream. We have received notes and memories > from all over the world which we will be reading and sharing along with our > memories at the “sharemony”, so if anyone has thoughts, memories or anything, > it has been a real blessing to receive and we would love to have more. If > anyone wants the private link to the livestream, please message off list and > I will provide the link. Link to his obituary: > https://www.walkerfuneralhomes.com/obituaries/Charles-Robert-Pyle?obId=19639780#/obituaryInfo > > Thank you all and again, my apologies for coopting this conversation. > > Sincerely, > Jacob Pyle > > From: Charles Pyle > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 9:09 PM > To: [email protected]; Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> > Cc: Peirce List <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic > > Edwina, list: > > I don’t have access to my Peirce data right now, but I do disagree with the > claim that Peirce does not allow for something prior to semiosis. I happened > on the following quote from Peirce in some notes, but it doesn’t identify the > source. It seems to me that Peirce is talking here about something prior to > semiosis. > > ---begin quote > The idea of the absolutely First must be entirely separated from all > conception of or reference to anything else; for what involves a second is > itself a second to that second. The First must therefore be present and > immediate, so as not to be second to a representation. It must be fresh and > new, for if old it is second to its former state. It must be initiative, > original, spontaneous, and free; otherwise it is second to a determining > cause. It is also something vivid and conscious; so only it avoids being the > object of some sensation. It precedes all synthesis and all differentiation; > it has no unity and no parts. It cannot be articulately thought: assert it, > and it has already lost its characteristic innocence; for assertion always > implies a denial of something else. Stop to think of it, and it has flown! > What the world was to Adam on the day he opened his eyes to it, before he had > drawn any distinctions, or had become conscious of his own existence – that > is first, present, immediate, fresh, new, initiative, original, spontaneous, > free, vivid, conscious, and evanescent. Only, remember that every description > of it must be false to it. > ---end quote > > Here too, I wonder what Peirce could mean here by direct experience, > collateral experience, and self-experience, if not something prior to > semiosis. > ---begin quote > 1908 [c.] | Letters to Lady Welby | MS [R] L463:14: "A Sign may bring before > the Mind, a new hypothesis, or a sentiment, a quality, a respect, a degree, a > thing, an event, a law, etc. But it never can convey anything to a person > who has not had a direct experience or at least original self-experience of > the same object, collateral experience." > ---end quote > > Same here. As I read this and similar statements, he envisions a mode of > knowing that is outside of the system of signs. > ---begin quote > I do not mean by "collateral observation" acquaintance with the system of > signs. What is so gathered is not COLLATERAL. It is on the contrary the > prerequisite for getting any idea signified by the Sign. (CP 8.179, EP 2:494, > 1909) > ---end quote > > And finally, as I recall in defining existential graphs Peirce held that the > sheet of assertion represents truth, the context within which assertions are > inscribed. > > Regards, > Charles Pyle > > > From: Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 8:11 PM > To: Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]>; Charles Pyle > <[email protected]> > Cc: Peirce List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic > > Charles, list: > > I don't see how you can assert that, " there is a truth that is prior to > semiosis, in my opinion, also is consistent with Peirce’s thinking. " > > My understanding of Peirce is that there is nothing outside of semiosis! 'the > entire universe - not merely the universe of existents, the universe which we > are all accustomed to refer to as 'the truth' - that all this universe is > perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs' 5.449f. > [That is - there is no 'force' aka truth, that is prior to or outside of > semiosis]. > > "Truth is the conformity of a representamen to its object, ITS object, mind > you" 5.554. [Truth is obviously operative within the semiosic process - not > prior to it]. > > And the methods of attaining this truth [the conformity of a representamen to > its object] - is via..induction, deduction, abduction. > > I understand that you are a Buddhist - which does indeed, posit an a priori > Truth - but I don't find any such concepts within the work of Peirce. Such a > view would greatly change the power of semiosis, reducing it to almost a > mechanical function. > > Edwina > > > > On Tue 24/11/20 12:38 AM , Charles Pyle [email protected] sent: > > Hi Jerry, > > It is not my hypothesis. The linguistic theory of markedness has been around > since at least the 1930’s. Since then it has been tested against a vast body > of data from a huge number of languages by generations of linguists. > Nevertheless, as with so much of linguistics, markedness theory seems not to > have come to the attention of the rest of the academic world, let alone the > civilian world. > > If you do a google search on “markedness theory” you will find a lot of > information. The top item returned to me just now had a nice statement about > the beginning of markedness theory. > > ----begin quote > Markedness Theory proposes that in the languages of the world certain > linguistic elements are more basic, natural, and frequent (unmarked) than > others which are referred to as marked. The concept of Markedness is first > proposed by the Prague School scholars Nikolai Sergeyevich Trubetzkoy and > Roman Jakobson. > https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c855/a0ad0e00662ee7b813c6d332f7374ef221e4.pdf > ----end quote > > There is also an informative Wikipedia page: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markedness > > As to falsification of the hypothesis, as I said it has been subject to > extensive empirical testing. > > As to the relation between markedness theory and Peirce, again numerous > scholars in many different fields have explored the relationship. > > Michael Shapiro is a well-known scholar of markedness theory and he has been > active on this list for many years. See this article for example. > https://cspeirce.iupui.edu/menu/library/aboutcsp/shapiro/shapiro-mclc.pdf > > Finally, I note that markedness theory in no way vitiates Peirce’s doctrine > of the tripartite nature of the sign. And the idea that there is a truth that > is prior to semiosis, in my opinion, also is consistent with Peirce’s > thinking. > > Cheers, > Charles Pyle > > > > From: Jerry LR Chandler > Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 6:57 PM > To: Charles Pyle > Cc: Peirce List > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] multiple-valued logic > > Hi Charles > > Your post below left me stone cold! > > One counter example to your hypothesis (conjecture?) is the language of > chemistry. > It is built on positive evidence and reproducible empirical observations. The > propositional webs of inferences of chemical structures is one of the several > facets of chemical logic that CSP exploited in constructing his philosophies. > > The sensory properties of matter are fixed by experience. Taste and smell > are remembered and associated with activities and events. The timelessness of > chemical names, such as water, or sugar or gold or…. are deeply embedded in > human communication. > > Chemical language grows from these positive impressions of sensory > experiences on feelings / emotions. The connections between chemical > receptor encoded directly from the chemical genetic structures and the > chemical circumstances is firmly grounded in decades of experience and > centuries of experience. The consistency of the chemical language has > remained unchallenged for centuries. > > What separates the acquisition of chemical language from other languages? > > What, if any, role does Popperian falsification theory play in your > assertions? > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > On Nov 22, 2020, at 6:14 PM, Charles Pyle <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 4:25 PM > To: Charles Pyle <[email protected]> > Cc: Peirce-L <[email protected]> > 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" <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2020 11:00 AM > To: Peirce-L <[email protected]> > 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 > [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > 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 [email protected] > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > 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 [email protected] . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 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.
