No Subject
At 14:20 15/05/2001 -0400, vous avez écrit:
Jon,
Thanks for your documents upon determination; But there were so many mails
that I could not yet look carefully at them. I will do.
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>> In fact I quoted this paragraph for a double reason.
>> I try to clarify without refering to Peirce terminology
>> what made me react. In fact I am not sure to understand
>> eveything you said in the two paragraph 'in the first version ...'
>> and 'in the second version ...' I think that it is good but that
>> is also a sort of reductionism.
>
>Yes, it can become that if one is not careful and flexible.
>Here is my attitude. I think that a kind of "heuristically"
>nominal or reductive position is actually a good way to start,
>and I imagine that this is probably what Ockham, as a sensible
>person, was probably driving at. And I have seen nothing yet
>in his original writings that would contradict this opinion,
>though I have not read but a small taste of what he wrote.
>But if one refuses, on principle, to admit of any abstract
>entities at all, no matter what, then one has contracted
>for a degenre of "dogmatic" nominalism and reductionism,
>and this makes it all but impossible to do mathematics
>or almost anything at all beyond "nominal thinking",
>to pose the rather pointed pun. One of the features
>that saves my perspective, analogous to projective
>or descriptive geometry, from falling into this pit
>is the appreciation of Cartesian Rationalism, which
>is one of the aesthetic attitudes that Peirce shared
>with Descartes -- and so it must be the one true view! --
>whose consequences in this context are that no completed
>sample of signs, in any significant equivalence relation
>among signs alone, is going to exhaust the senses of the
>object to which all of these signs point. This, indeed,
>if you recall, was the Big Issue that Chomsky took with
>Skinner, way back when, with the very first shots that
>were fired in the Cognitive Revolution. Ah, Madeleine!
>
Sorry, my aim was not to criticize your cartesianisme. In this way I am too
a reductionnist. My first studies were in mathematics (specially in
algebra, analysis, topology)... I forgot certainly a lot, and I do
not know recent works. But it is not necessary to remind me the
topological definitions that worry you so much.
In fact I found that your formalization would gain if it will be
some more complex; The way in which I try to expose this to you was also a
big reduction. The better is to look at Culioli formalization :
Culioli A. (1995). Cognition and representation in linguistic theory.
Amsterdam, J.Benjamins.
It is the same thing for determination : I believe that it is the same
thing as you, but I am in the habit of seeing it more formalized, or more
exactely in a different way (cf Culioli). The way I explained you it was
very rough itself.
Rather than to discuus determination, to-day I will try to give an
example of my analysis (sorry in french, but if you give an english
protocol, I think you have it, I can transpose the analysis and discuss
about its formalization on cognitive level).
I'll give it on a separate mail because I know we have to be consise on the
list.
Josiane
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Josiane Caron-Pargue
UMR CNRS 6096 "Langage et Cognition" (LACO)
Université de Poitiers
Maison des Sciences de l'Homme et de la Société (MSHS)
99, Avenue du Recteur Pineau
86022 Poitiers cedex
Tél.: 05 49 45 46 23 (Bureau)
secrétariat : 05 49 45 46 10
fax : 05 49 45 46 16
e-mail : josiane.caron@mshs.univ-poitiers.fr
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°