ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] mKR (was Thing and Class)

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Rick Murphy <rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:14:04 -0400
Message-id: <48CDB6DC.7030706@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Many thanks, John. See below ...    (01)

John F. Sowa wrote:
> Rick,
> 
> About 800 years ago, the scholastics divided the "language arts"
> in three parts:  Grammar, logic, and rhetoric.  Peirce elaborated
> that subdivision with further explanation, and he made the point
> that the role of logic is to determine "the formal conditions
> of the truth of propositions."  That is essentially the scope of
> a Tarski-style model theory.    (02)

Ok, understood.    (03)

> In the 1930s, partly under the influence of Peirce and partly
> under the influence of the behaviorists, Charles Morris renamed
> the three traditional subdivisions syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.    (04)

Just so I understand Marris's use of the term pragmatics, how, if at 
all, did Morris precisely differentiate Peirce's dynamical object from 
Peirce's definition of pragmaticism in his classification ?    (05)

> The analytic philosophers picked up those terms, interpreted the
> middle term along the lines of Tarski's model theory, and didn't
> have a clear idea of what to do about pragmatics.    (06)

I see. This speaks volumes about how one might classify semantics, 
semiotics and pragmaticism. And here by pragmaticism I mean the 
practical bearing of an individual's conception of an object, where 
practical bearing implies convergence on meaning through exchange or 
interaction.    (07)

> RM> I had previously referenced this paper ...
>  >
> http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~soames/forthcoming_papers/Truth_and_Meaning.pdf
>  >
>  > and wondered whether anyone was interested in sharing their thoughts ?
> 
> My major complaint about it is that rhetoric or pragmatics is a
> very important part of meaning.  In fact, I would say it is the
> essential goal of any utterance, and syntax and logic are just
> means to get the pragmatics across to the intended audience.
> I was disappointed that the author didn't focus on pragmatics.    (08)

Same here. But I suspect Soames would have to be overly ambitious to 
develop Tarski semantics through a theory of semiotics into pragmaticism 
in one paper.    (09)

BTW - My two favorite books this summer were Roland Barthes's 
Mythologies and Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation. Mythologies was 
a gem on every page and Simulacra was a chore. But, once I set aside 
Baudriallard's nihilism, his message became quite clear.    (010)

> One could say a lot more, but I would prefer to address related
> issues in a different way.  Following are some slides I presented
> in July.  The last slide has pointers to further reading, including
> an article by the same title:
> 
>     http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/pursuing.pdf
>     Pursuing the goal of language understanding    (011)

Thanks, I'll give this another read.    (012)

> John
> 
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>  
> 
>     (013)

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (014)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>