Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

ONT Re: Aristotle's Approximation




¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤

A  = Aristotle
DM = Douglas McDavid
JA = Jon Awbrey

DM: Just to move this a step further, let me say that much of the
    work you are doing on these lists is an attempt to align yours
    and others' mental affections around some basic semeia in the
    domain of inquiry.

Not sure.  I think I will stick to aligning text.
It's a whole lot easier than aligning affections.

DM: That this work is necessary is a strong indication that the statement:

A: | the mental affections themselves, of which
   | these words are primarily signs (semeia),
   | are the same for the whole of mankind,

DM: is absolutely the reverse of the real case.
    To get all manner of mental affections,
    even in the most rudimentary alignment,
    is the subject of never-ending, arduous,
    and massive work effort, which is really
    only now beginning to be addressed in
    earnest.  This is exactly why I am
    staying tuned to these channels.

Like I said, I am in the middle of re-thinking the implications
of this text, and so I may need to make things up as I go along.

I can think of at least two different ways of reading what Aristotle is saying here --
let us call the construals "strict construction" (SC) and "loose construction" (LC).

SC.  I get the sense that you are reading it this way,
     as if Aristotle were saying that everyone knows
     exactly the same objects and is impressed in
     exactly the same way by each one of them,
     but has the option of using a diversity
     of signs to express each impression.

LC.  I am initially disposed to try and read this text another way,
     if only out of a well-known principle of interpretive charity
     that asks us to look for a way of not rendering others absurd,
     that is, of course, if can be helped at all.  The LC requires
     us to take Aristotle's uniformation hypothesis as saying only
     that everybody affords the same object domain O and possesses
     the same interpretant domain I, with all of the usual variety
     in the sign domain S, but that nothing restrains interpreters
     to having precisely the same impressions of any given objects.

Saved by the dinner bell --

Jon Awbrey

¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤