[Inquiry] Re: Futures Of Logical Graphs -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

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

FOLG.  Discussion Note 22

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

JA = Jon Awbrey
JR = Joe Ransdell

Re: FOLG-DIS 19.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-November/003173.html
In: FOLG-DIS.     http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-November/thread.html#3167

Joe, Peirce List,

I continue with your remarks ...

JR: Thus the use of the word "involves" as an intentionally vague description of
    the relationship in question is not necessary.  But it is nevertheless very
    helpful to be able to use it to describe that relationship in discussing the
    philosophical problem because it does in fact convey in that use -- even to
    you -- a sense determinate enough to be informative in understanding Peirce's
    theory of meaning, ...

If it were a "sense determinate enough to be informative", that is,
if "determinate" involves being clear, and "informative" involves
being informative enough, then I think thyat this inquiry would
be at its end.  The fact that uncertainty remains is evidence
that something is something is still unclear to someone --
information being relative to interpreters, as you note --
and I am simply proceeding on what presently seems one
likely hypothesis about where the dust bunnies might
be hiding.

JR: ... as should be clear from the earlier discussion here some months
    ago of Tom Short's claim about the supposed logical flaws of Peirce's
    conception of sign interpretation in the theory of cognition papers of
    the late l860's.  If the semeiosis process was conceived by Peirce, from
    early on, as being such that the symbolic aspect of semeiosis essentially
    involves the functioning of an icon presentative of the sense of the symbol,
    then Short failed to give a minimally accurate account of Peirce's theory
    of meaning in his paper and his criticism is, insofar, just mistaken since
    he makes no mention of any such involvement, and obviously assumes that
    there is none, which is what enables him to character Peirce's theory
    as vacuous because the sign-interpretant process transmits no meaning
    whatever if it does nothing but translate symbols by symbols.

I was going to mark that "digression" -- as I'm not even
going to try and remember all the in's and out's of what
we were animadiverting with TS -- my vague impression is
that he was saying the usual thing about Peirce's course
of development, based on the implicit assumption of most
philosophical training in the 20th Century, to wit, that
nearer to Frege is nearer to Truth, a faith that has all
the more force when it works unconsciously in people who
would probably deny it.  That makes the task of dragging
all of its implicities and all of its complicities into
the light far too difficult to undertake here and now.

But I see no plausibility yet for the assertion that
"the semeiosis process was conceived by Peirce, from
early on, as being such that the symbolic aspect of
semeiosis essentially involves the functioning of
an icon presentative of the sense of the symbol".
Indeed, I would have to diagnose that belief
as a symptom of the unexamined faith that
I adverted to above.

Jon Awbrey

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