Jerry R: I will just take a quick moment to respond to your posts.
My simple conjecture is that these statements rest on the role of sin-sign in constructing and confirming new forms of knowledge. While a sinsign is singular, the index would ordinarily be plural as would the arguments that create the legisign. That is, the ontological constituents create the epistemic meaning. This was standard practice in the methodology of the special sciences as deployed during CSP’s decades in the second half of the 18 th. At least to me, this logical conjecture would not generally be a truth function in the Skolemized logics of the 20 th century. (This is a bit technical; perhaps it answers your concern, perhaps not.) Cheers Jerry > On Oct 4, 2021, at 1:58 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Jack, list, > > You have raised some very interesting points that invite reflective > propositions from the audience who, > as you say, “Would be very interested to receive any variety of response to > this > - preferably those which ardently disagree with me!” > > I must say I do not ardently disagree with you, for it seems to me we are > interested in similar things. > And as far as similar things go, > I have recently sent out a letter, which I’m afraid went unnoticed, > inquiring about a similar question. > > I wonder if you can help me, > since the similarity will become obvious once we place the two requests next > to one another: > > The goal of an inference is > to establish the existence of an unperceived object, > and if we did perceive that object, > we would have no need to infer it; > however inference necessarily regards an object > that has already been perceived. > > Does anyone know what this means and who wrote it? > I am certain there is Wisdom in it but not sure why. > (Sep 10, 2021) > —- > Knowledge in some way renders them efficient; and a sign is something by > knowing which we know something more. > > What does Peirce mean by "a sign is something by knowing which we know > something more"? > (Oct 4, 2021) > > Would you say, based on your immediate recognition and habits, > that the purpose of bringing to attention these two sayings is the same? > > But then this would suggest, > if we analyze the one to one correspondence, that an inference is like a > sign. > > And since our habit is not to look like an expert who knowingly ignores what > we have already acknowledged, > such as what definition of ‘normative inference’ means > (that is, has Peirce ever spoken on what inference is? > I mean, it seems we would remember something like that and would be able to > tell us.), > do these two requests induce the same sort of questions as the things you are > now talking and thinking about > in an efficient manner? > > With best wishes, > Jerry R > > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 1:34 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com > <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> wrote: > Jack, List: > > Good stuff, thanks. I would just like to clarify one other thing from your > earlier post. > > JRKC: It also refers back, in a roundabout way, to the discussion we had here > last week regarding Peirce's position on the existence of god (insofar as > object-sign-interpretant implies that the object itself belongs to some > universe-external position ... > > Peirce's conception of object-sign-interpretant only implies that the > (dynamical) object is external to, independent of, and unaffected by any sign > that it determines. Hence, an object that is "universe-external" is only > necessary if we also accept the distinct premiss that the entire universe is > a sign, i.e., "a vast representamen" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193, 1903). However, > Peirce also claims that "if any signs are connected, no matter how, the > resulting system constitutes one sign," calling this a theorem of "the > science of semeiotics" but unfortunately not providing a proof (R > 1476:36[5-1/2], 1904). Therefore, in order to avoid the conclusion that there > is a "universe-external" object that determines the entire universe, one must > either reject this particular theorem or deny the further premiss that the > entire universe is "composed exclusively of signs" (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, > 1906). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 12:41 PM JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY > <jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie <mailto:jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie>> wrote: > Jon, List, > The only way to know something at all, and therefore the only way to know > something more, is by means of signs; and in accordance with Peirce's > pragmatism, the ultimate meaning of any acquired knowledge consists in > self-controlled habits of conduct, by which those signs have a real effect on > the external world > Thanks for that reply, Jon, it was quite succinct. The linkage you make (from > Peirce) between efficiency and habit is very interesting. I know the > centrality of habit to Peirce's doctrine (if we may call it doctrine) and am > currently expanding my own knowledge regarding all its significances. For > instance, that Peirce considers habits to be, in much greater extent, > creative forces instead of constraints (though he acknowledges that they > necessarily constrain, too): > > "Some undisciplined young persons may have come to think of acquired human > habits chiefly as constraints; and undoubtedly they all are so in a measure. > But good habits are in much greater measure powers than they are limitations > . . .” (MS 930: 31) > > Your summary here dovetails quite nicely with much of what Pierre Bourdieu > has to say about habit, too ("habitus" in his formulation, carried over from > Marcel Mauss). Those "self-controlled habits of conduct... which... have a > real effect on the external world" are very apt in relation to habitus though > Bourdieu would deviate slightly insofar as he doesn't necessarily consider > habit to be "self-controlled" but often, in his schema, it can resemble what > Engels called "false consciousness". The interesting part, though, is that > Bourdieu locates in habitus the same order of generative principle which > Peirce seems to have discerned and which Chomsky, too seems to place in > recursion insofar as recursion is understood as a regularity which can/does > produce/generate differences in structural form. > > Best > > Jack > > From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu > <mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu > <mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu>> on behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt > <jonalanschm...@gmail.com <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> > Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 5:36 PM > To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Re: Cognitive Signs (was All > Semiotic, No Puzzle) > > Jack, List: > > JRKC: Doesn't this depend on how we define "inefficient"? > > Peirce prepared the entry for "efficient" in the Century Dictionary. > > efficient, a. and n. I. a. 1. Producing outward effects; of a nature to > produce a resuit; active; causative. > 2. Acting or able to act with due effect; adequate in performance; bringing > to bear the requisite knowledge, skill, and industry; capable; competent: as, > an efficient workman, rector, or commander. > > In this context, it seems to me that Peirce is not using "efficient" in the > second sense of "doing more with less," but rather in the first sense of > having a real effect on the external world. As he says right before the > previously quoted sentences, "It appears to me that the essential function of > a sign is to render inefficient relations efficient,--not to set them into > action, but to establish a habit or general rule whereby they will act on > occasion" (CP 8.332, 1904). In other words, according to the physical > doctrine (nominalism/materialism/determinism), the only relations that have a > real effect on the external world are "the continued rectilinear velocities > with the accelerations that accompany different relative positions of the > particles." By contrast, Peirce's view is that signs and semiosis enable > other relations to have a real effect on the external world that would > otherwise be impotent to do so. As he writes elsewhere ... > > CSP: But everybody who looks out of his eyes, and is not blinded by a > metaphysical theory, well knows that thoughts and other signs may bring about > great physical effects that are not, as such, signs. During a battle an aide > de camp may ride up to one of the commanding generals, and utter a few words. > As long as they are audible, it makes no difference how much or little > physical energy the waves of sound carry. The consequence is that in a few > minutes a great charge of cavalry takes place, tremendous, terrific; and > hundreds of men pass the gates of death. (R 318:169-170[14-15], 1907) > > As for a sign being "something by knowing which we know something more," > Peirce goes on to state in the succeeding sentences, "With the exception of > knowledge, in the present instant, of the contents of consciousness in that > instant (the existence of which knowledge is open to doubt) all our thought > and knowledge is by signs. A sign therefore is an object which is in relation > to its object on the one hand and to an interpretant on the other, in such a > way as to bring the interpretant into a relation to the object, corresponding > to its own relation to the object" (CP 8.332). The only way to know something > at all, and therefore the only way to know something more, is by means of > signs; and in accordance with Peirce's pragmatism, the ultimate meaning of > any acquired knowledge consists in self-controlled habits of conduct, by > which those signs have a real effect on the external world. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 10:35 AM JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY > <jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie <mailto:jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie>> wrote: > Or, essentially, my own (perhaps idiosyncratic) interpretation of the passage > which began this thread is that Peirce seemed to realise that in “accessing" > (perhaps being determined by) one object (whether dynamic/immediate) we often > find a kind of novelty with which we are already, in some respect, acquainted > (we merely abstract formal elements of one “sign” to form abductive > hypotheses regarding the possible formal elements of other, “future”, signs). > And this convergence of multiple objects combined with, or predicated upon, > abductive leaps in relative to the iconicity/aniconcity of structural > patterns -- affinity/dissonance of/between internal relations -- is what > draws, again, to my mind, clear parallels with Chomsky’s poverty of stimulus. > > > We abstract from parts internal structural relations which metonymically > correspond to a broader structural pattern which indexes the existence of the > "whole" - this kind of abstraction combined with abductive application > (fallible theses regarding the internal applicability/affinity of/between > patterns) is what unites Peirce, Chomsky, and Bourdieu (even though Chomsky > is a resolute Cartesian and the others reject such a position out of hand). > > Would be very interested to receive any variety of response to this - > preferably those which ardently disagree with me! > > Best > > Jack > > From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu > <mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu> <peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu > <mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu>> on behalf of JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY > <jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie <mailto:jack.cody.2...@mumail.ie>> > Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 3:54 PM > To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>>; > tabor...@primus.ca <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca> <tabor...@primus.ca > <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Re: Cognitive Signs (was All > Semiotic, No Puzzle) > > Edwina, List, > > Thanks for you reply! > An inefficient interaction provides no information; it's just brute > action/reaction. > Doesn't this depend on how we define "inefficient"? Because Peirce sets the > dyadic (action/reaction) up as the most efficient - "...nothing ever happens > but the continued rectilinear velocities with the accelerations that > accompany different relative positions of the particles. All other relations, > of which we know so many, are inefficient." > > Taking up the colloquial definition of the term -- or its antonym at least -- > we can contrast efficiency with waste. It seems to me that all interaction -- > especially that which babies/children engage in -- is extremely "inefficient" > insofar as they are subject to so much signification that they do not possess > the means of understanding/knowing. And, aside from that, the fact of > polysemy and diagrammatic relations would seem to posit that all > interpretations of anything whatsoever are inefficient as they mediate one, > or at any rate, a limited number, of sides of what is a many-sided > phenomenon. > > Then there is language (and sociality itself) which can be considered > "inefficient" - if we simply wanted to convey denotational information, we > would never have conversations in the style that we do. As Roman Jakobson > notes, there is a spectral quality to language and the phatic/poetic > functions are always present but can be attenuated relative to more > denotational utterances -- the point, though, is that what some consider > "inefficient" others consider "efficient". The two Oxford (or was it > Cambridge?) dons who conversed with each other solely thought mathematical > problems written on sheets of paper delivered back and forth between their > lodgings by intermediaries -- so much so that the death of Ramanujan (whom > one of these two had brought to England) was discussed between the two only > as what seems to most of us a "throwaway" comment immediately followed by an > extensive list of mathematical proofs and hypotheses (it was actually quite a > poignant inclusion if you consider it from the angle that these two men never > spoke in English at all, for the most part). > > So -- and I know this is deviation -- what is "efficient" in matters "social" > is itself a matter of perspective. > > The other point - of the operation of semiosis at it would appear in itself - > is a very salient one, I think. It also refers back, in a roundabout way, to > the discussion we had here last week regarding Peirce's position on the > existence of god (insofar as object-sign-interpretant implies that the object > itself belongs to some universe-external position: and here I wonder, only > speculatively, if we cannot draw comparisons between "grammar" and > "phaneron"). Obviously "grammar" is part of the phaneron, but Peirce's > description of the phaneron, to my mind, and perhaps mine alone, resembles > some distinctions as made by Saussure in relation to langue (the total[izing] > grammatical whole which logically precedes the utterance in order of > necessity). > > Again, this is all very much a speculative mishmash of ideas resulting from a > thesis overflow, but children are never directly exposed to such irregular > constructions as “go-ed” because adults, acquainted with linguistic ideology > pertaining to what Bourdieu terms “standard” know that such forms are > grammatically “incorrect” (are possessed of negative cultural capital) and > consequently do not reproduce them. > > How then do we account for the continual reproduction (in staggering > statistical frequency across all social classes) of such forms if not by > admitting an a priori capacity or faculty for apprehending structural > patterns (within linguistic forms) and thereby abstracting elements from said > patterns in order to apply them, generatively, to new constructions which > include, but are not limited to, such over-irregularized constructs as > “go-ed”? Again, the argument I am making here is not necessarily in favour of > all which is implied under the banner of “universal grammar” – I possess > neither the competence nor the interest to engage in interlinguistic analysis > for the sole purpose of supporting or detracting from said hypothesis. My > point is merely that the fundamental part of Chomsky’s theory – the a priori > capacity for discernment of structural patterns within linguistic forms – > seems sound even if one wishes to dispense with the rest of the baggage > associated with Chomskyean theory re UG. > > Best > > Jack > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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 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 > <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. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
