John, List,
Thank you for the shared resources (Diagrammatolgy by Stjernfelt is proving particularly helpful to me). However, I have a slight deviation. In trying to tease out some of Peirce's terms, I have been thinking about a hypothetical scenario: A bird flies over a cornfield. It descends in anticipation of landing. Just as it is about to land, it notices a patch of black and brown standing out, apart from, the yellowy hue of the corn. The patch corresponds to an (as yet) undetermined figure of a scarecrow. Now, what variety of sign relationship/vehicle, are we dealing with? Held in suspension, with no resolution -- no answer to the question "What effect did the figure produce upon/within the bird?" -- it seems impossible to identify the correct sign-type. The kind of sign relationship which encompasses bird and scarecrow seems to suffer from ambiguity (or perhaps generality) until the object of the sign determines the interpretant (or some such similar process occurs; essentially, until there is some corresponding action within the mind of the bird). If, then, the bird reacts to the figure by averting its landing and beginning a renewed ascent, the effect is one of avoidance. The figure has thus served its purpose insofar as, to the bird, it represents something (an icon?) of that "type" we call human. There are many different kinds of sign and sign-type which seem to fit different stages of the above description (icon being the most obvious but perhaps not in the most obvious place, as is icon not more suitable to the earliest stage, prior to determination, wherein generality is much more prominent?), and I am curious as to how you would all go about investigating this problem? If nothing else, these hypotheticals help me clarify what Peirce means by his various terms. Best Jack ________________________________ From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> on behalf of Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2021 2:51 PM To: tabor...@primus.ca <tabor...@primus.ca> Cc: tabor...@primus.ca <tabor...@primus.ca>; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>; John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>; ontolog-fo...@googlegroups.com <ontolog-fo...@googlegroups.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words Warning This email originated from outside of Maynooth University's Mail System. Do not reply, click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Edwina, John, List I think, when somebody, regardless of which language or culture, reads a sentence, he*she does not jump to conclusions unless the sentence is read. So I guess that the role of the verb´s position should not be overestimated. Like culture in general should not. The Yoruba color classes "Fun fun", "Pupa", and "Du du" I can easily understand and adjust to, although I never before have had any knowledge of the Yoruba culture. But its color classification makes perfect sense to me. About language and culture I am a universalist, who likes Chomsky´s theory, and not Sapir/Whorf´s. The meaning of different cultures is mutual enrichment, but not separation or definition of "identities". Only people with a lack of self-esteem and psychological resources think they need an identity from an institution outside them, and outside their being human, like culture, ethnicity, or nation. There are many similarities, but hardly any incommensurabilities between different native languages and cultures. But language in general is imperfect, so graphs are a good thing I guess. But you can easily translate a complex novel from one language into the other, but try to translate "Finnegan´s Wake", or just "Yankee Doodle came to town" into graphs. At least I have not seen anything like that ever done. Best, Helmut 25. Juli 2021 um 14:55 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: John, list I wonder if diagrammatic thinking is focused more on relations than specific and separate individual units, i.e., verbs and subjects/objects. That is, I long ago noticed that some indigenous languages which are oral rather than literate- and I'd include ancient Chinese and Latin - have the verb at the end of the sentence. So, the format is Subject/Object/Verb. Our modern format - and that includes modern Chinese, has put the verb in between the Subject and Object. So, the meaning becomes X does something to Y...and in a way, X is not affected by the action. To me, this old oral format means that the subject and object are together co-involved within the actions of the verb. I think this fits in with Peirce's triadic format where the Representamen/Sign mediates between the Object and Interpretant. And where the Interpretant does affect the original Object. So, the format here is X/Y are involved in an action. ..and both are affected by this action. So- I'm wondering if diagrams are also easier to understand because they clarify the relations that are going on. Edwina On Sat 24/07/21 6:06 PM , "John F. Sowa" s...@bestweb.net sent: Edwina, Yes. That is a major advantage of diagrams: ET> I agree that diagrams are more fundamental than words, since their attributes are less open to multiple interpretations. That includes both the written and spoken word, with the latter overlaid with meanings provided by tone and rhythm and the former open to many misinterpretations because of the lack of both. [As we find in email and text messages]. The phaneron, as initially experienced, is independent of any bias. But every step of interpreting the experience adds biases from the individual's conscious knowledge, unconscious habits, cultural traditions, and linguistic constraints of vocabulary, syntax, and semantics. Those biases may be good, bad, or neutral. As an example, the subjects for a psycholinguistic experiment were asked to sort photographs into similar groups, according to any grouping they considered relevant. Some of the subjects happened to be native speakers of Yoruba, which has a color classification that is very different from English and other European languages. After the subjects did their sorting, the experimenter said "Think in Yoruba." The subjects laughed and immediately resorted the photographs in a completely different grouping. When they switched from thinking in English to thinking in Yoruba, they completely reorganized their interpretations. And by the way, I also cc'd a note to Peirce-L, which I had sent to Ontolog Forum with the title "Modal Logic is an Immense Swamp". That note addresses issues about logic for which Peirce's writings are still at the forefront of research today. Before reading that note, I recommend the slides I cited in it: http://jfsowa.com/talks/eswc.pdf 1. For a brief overview of existential graphs, skip to slides 14 to 21 of escw.pdf. 2. For issues about mapping English (and other languages) to EGs, see slides 21 to 35. 3. For the differences between thinking in diagrams and thinking in words, see slides 36 to 52. To complete the loop, I'm also cc'ing this note to Ontolog Forum. John _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell. ________________________________ From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> on behalf of John F. Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2021 11:06 PM To: tabor...@primus.ca <tabor...@primus.ca>; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Cc: ontolog-fo...@googlegroups.com <ontolog-fo...@googlegroups.com> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words *Warning* This email originated from outside of Maynooth University's Mail System. Do not reply, click links or open attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe. Edwina, Yes. That is a major advantage of diagrams: ET> I agree that diagrams are more fundamental than words, since their attributes are less open to multiple interpretations. That includes both the written and spoken word, with the latter overlaid with meanings provided by tone and rhythm and the former open to many misinterpretations because of the lack of both. [As we find in email and text messages]. The phaneron, as initially experienced, is independent of any bias. But every step of interpreting the experience adds biases from the individual's conscious knowledge, unconscious habits, cultural traditions, and linguistic constraints of vocabulary, syntax, and semantics. Those biases may be good, bad, or neutral. As an example, the subjects for a psycholinguistic experiment were asked to sort photographs into similar groups, according to any grouping they considered relevant. Some of the subjects happened to be native speakers of Yoruba, which has a color classification that is very different from English and other European languages. After the subjects did their sorting, the experimenter said "Think in Yoruba." The subjects laughed and immediately resorted the photographs in a completely different grouping. When they switched from thinking in English to thinking in Yoruba, they completely reorganized their interpretations. And by the way, I also cc'd a note to Peirce-L, which I had sent to Ontolog Forum with the title "Modal Logic is an Immense Swamp". That note addresses issues about logic for which Peirce's writings are still at the forefront of research today. Before reading that note, I recommend the slides I cited in it: http://jfsowa.com/talks/eswc.pdf 1. For a brief overview of existential graphs, skip to slides 14 to 21 of escw.pdf. 2. For issues about mapping English (and other languages) to EGs, see slides 21 to 35. 3. For the differences between thinking in diagrams and thinking in words, see slides 36 to 52. To complete the loop, I'm also cc'ing this note to Ontolog Forum. John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
