[Inquiry] Relatives of Second Intention -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

ROSI.  Discussion Note 1

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

BB = Bill Bailey

Re: ROSI 1.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-March/thread.html#2501
In: ROSI.    http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-March/002501.html

BB: That's a very interesting passage, especially what Peirce calls
    the "logic of relatives".  I've been musing over what to call the
    early use of signs.  Back when I was a Navy Corpsman, I often had
    patients on the pediatrics ward.   Frequently, when I'd approach
    in a white lab coat to change the dressing of a very young child
    or infant, sometimes before the first touch the child would begin
    to cry.  These were kids who'd spent much of their lives in a
    hospital.  However, if I went straight to the ward from surgery
    in my scrubs, I'd often change the same child's dressing without
    a peep.  Scrubs became uniform of the day for me on that ward.
    One developmental psychologist suggested children cried in the
    barbershop because of the resemblance between the smock of the
    barber and the physician's lab coat.  It is indeed non-relative
    logic, as Peirce says.  The correlation between the white visual
    experience and the relevance is instantaneous and absolute.  Does
    that qualify as an index?  Icon?  Both?  Furthermore, the child's
    world is very unstable with frequent violations of expectations.
    I don't know about falsehood, but I suspect Peirce means the same
    thing I mean with "unstable" or "violations of expectations",
    i.e., the sign was false.  I assume Peirce would agree that the
    untrustworthy sign pressures the child to defer response pending
    more complex assessment of the variables -- that is, wait minute,
    that's not the doctor, but the nurse.  Is it feeding time?  It's
    not time for a shot.  Etc., etc.  Only when beginning to calculate
    the probabilities -- when the child's logic becomes relative rather
    than responding to absolute correlations -- does the child's world
    become stable, informational.  But that requires a lengthy progress
    out of egocentrism.  And, by the time we're adults, none of us is
    afraid of doctor's offices.  Right?

BB: I don't know if dogs understand falsehood, but they do know how to practice it.
    My parents had a dog that coveted another dog's toy.  The covetous dog would run
    to the door and bark very excitedly.  When the other dog left its bed to see who
    was coming, the covetous dog would run to the other dog's bed, seize the toy and
    go hide behind a couch.

Bill,

Your associations have a way of leading me through some interesting
reflections of my own, with a curiously indirect relevance to my
original reason for citing this passage, which was pointed out
to me by my first advisor in philosophy circa 1972 (when I'm
sure I didn't have a clue), and which we've had recurring
occasions to revisit here and elsewhere.  But it's too
late in the day to form up a coherent reply, so I'll
just make this snapshot now and and see what sorts
of images develop in my darkroom overnight.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o