tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33488833.post5401550930770575506..comments2023-11-02T02:14:31.901-06:00Comments on ReadMoreWriteMoreThinkMoreBeMore: AnonymityDoctor Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13189506916480012553noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33488833.post-87560900728404727132009-07-28T00:18:31.179-05:002009-07-28T00:18:31.179-05:00I like to comment anonymously while wearing a fake...I like to comment anonymously while wearing a fake mustache. Doubly confusing for the reader.mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13570838005937684429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33488833.post-63619419941820747792009-07-26T15:08:26.335-05:002009-07-26T15:08:26.335-05:00Peirce takes this interplay between utterers and i...Peirce takes this interplay between utterers and interpreters, and their respective rights into the heart of formal logic:<br /><br /> "A sign (under which designation I place every kind of thought, and not alone external signs), that is in any respect objectively indeterminate (i.e., whose object is undetermined by the sign itself) is objectively general in so far as it extends to the interpreter the privilege of carrying its determination further. Example: "Man is mortal." To the question, What man? the reply is that the proposition explicitly leaves it to you to apply its assertion to what man or men you will. A sign that is objectively indeterminate in any respect is objectively vague in so far as it reserves further determination to be made in some other conceivable sign, or at least does not appoint the interpreter as its deputy in this office. Example: "A man whom I could mention seems to be a little conceited." The suggestion here is that the man in view is the person addressed; but the utterer does not authorize such an interpretation or any other application of what she says. She can still say, if she likes, that she does not mean the person addressed. Every utterance naturally leaves the right of further exposition in the utterer; and therefore, in so far as a sign is indeterminate, it is vague, unless it is expressly or by a well-understood convention rendered general." [CP 5.447]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33488833.post-39827793081169387472009-07-25T20:48:51.631-05:002009-07-25T20:48:51.631-05:00Thanks, Dr. J., for calling attention to the podca...Thanks, Dr. J., for calling attention to the podcast. <br /><br />Your comments about the impossibility of "saying just what I mean" and your appeal to Prufrock (also one of my favorites) have me thinking that the issue is not so much the human incapacity to say "just what I mean" but the <i>capacity</i> to say "That is not it at all, That is not what I meant at all."<br /><br />Even if we can never say just what we mean, we can respond in ways that hold each other accountable as we seek to articulate, together, a meaning with depth, integrity and the ability to transform relations.<br /><br />Finally, and I tried (poorly) to make this point on the podcast, there is something important about rooting thoughts, ideas, and words in concrete existences, in beings with identifiable bodies and histories and contexts. Meaning is not made full by such embodiments, but it is given a rich and ambiguous depth of significance by them, a significance that, again, opens new possibilities of relation.<br /><br />That is also part of why I was arguing against anonymity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33488833.post-83874865572815420342009-07-25T15:21:36.542-05:002009-07-25T15:21:36.542-05:00The classic account of this phenomenon:
http://ww...The classic account of this phenomenon:<br /><br />http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com