Gary F, list
You are ignoring the FACTS of linguistic interpretation and the
FACTS of the semiosic triadic process.
The facts are, that language is not a mechanical communication
system where Item X is simply moved from Site A to Site B, but
necessarily rests on a dialogic interaction of interpretation. This
is hardly a novel analysis; linguistic research has shown this to be
a fact for many, many years.
And since this dialogic interaction is triadic, it inserts a
mediating action, the Representamen/Sign..which transforms that raw
data into a meaning. AND - this resultant Interpretant meaning is
different according to the actions of the Representamen/Sign. AND -
the Representamen/Sign can be and is necessarily different for
different Agents. An expert physicist understands the atom in a very
different way than the individual without such knowledge.
Therefore - your claim that I declare that Peirce meant the opposite
of what he wrote - rejects the semiosic triadic process and instead,
proclaims the validity of the mechanical process. It actually removes
the Representamen/Sign!!! Rejects semiosis!!
Edwina
On Mon 27/09/21 8:54 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
John, you’ve said repeatedly that only a direct quotation from
Peirce can represent what he thought or meant. Now you tell us that
not even a direct quotation can do that: “Nobody on planet earth is
qualified to say that he or she knows exactly what Peirce meant.”
For all we know, Peirce could have meant exactly the opposite of
what he wrote in some direct quotation, as Edwina has been arguing.
So we are all free to attribute any thought to Peirce, as long as we
say that the attribution is an opinion; for all opinions are equally
baseless.
I think this logic, or hermeneutic, has the potential to
revolutionize Peircean studies. But of course that’s only my
opinion, as all interpretations are. Still, I can’t help wondering:
why would anyone bother to read Peirce at all?
Gary f.
} By their fruits ye shall know them. [Matthew 7:20] {
https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ [1] }{ living the time
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu
On Behalf Of sowa @bestweb.net
Sent: 27-Sep-21 00:33
To: gary.richm...@gmail.com; tabor...@primus.ca
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Vagueness and ambiguity (was Argumentation for
the Reality of God
Edwina, Gary R, List,
I've spent many years working with linguists, lexicographers, and
computer scientists in developing tools for analyzing languages.and
relating them to and from logic and computer notations. Following
are the slides for a talk about the problems:
http://jfsowa.com/talks/natlog.pdf [2]
The first 20 slides present examples from a variety of sources. You
can skip the rest. But I want to emphasize slide 17 on microsenses.
That's a term coined by the linguist Allen Cruse, who observed that
there is an open-ended, potentially infinite, range of variations for
nearly every word in every language.
-------------------------
ET: Thank you for the link to the last chapter of your book, where
you outline the basic ambiguity of language.This is a well-known fact
and simply supports my view that, for example, a reading of Peirce can
only be an interpretation and is not a direct mechanical transfer of
meaning from Site A to Site B. It's an interpretation and subject to
further discussion.
Yes. Please read the examples in those slides. It's never safe to
assume that the same word in two different contexts has the same
meaning. The technical terms of science are more likely to have
fairly fixed meanings, but note the examples for the word number.
ET: This means that I reject JAS's statement that my interpretation
of Peirce's Mind/Body relationship is merely an 'assertion' whereas
his interpretation is an accurate demonstration because he provides
'exact quotations'
Yes. Peirce's thought was dynamically developing over the years.
It's never safe to assume that words in two different MSS have
exactly the same miicrosense. Nobody on planet earth is qualified to
say that he or she knows exactly what Peirce meant. His statements
about mathematics and logic are fairly reliable. But it's not
possible to assume that any two people have the same interpretation
of the following words: mind, thought, feeling, God, imagination and
many others ,...
John
Links:
------
[1] https://gnusystems.ca/wp/
[2] http://jfsowa.com/talks/natlog.pdf
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
