From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nuscc!mango!john Tue Nov 26 12:31:05 EST 1991
Article 1457 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nuscc!mango!john
>From: john@mango.iss.nus.sg (John Waterworth)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Is semiotics an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <1991Nov21.065347.25751@nuscc.nus.sg>
Date: 21 Nov 91 06:53:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: nuscc.1991Nov21.065347.25751
References: <1991Nov8.225437.8880@nuscc.nus.sg> <1991Nov11.024611.12312@nuscc.nus.sg> <5229@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Sender: usenet@nuscc.nus.sg
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
Lines: 74

In article <5229@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au> paulh@cs.uq.oz.au writes:
>In <1991Nov11.024611.12312@nuscc.nus.sg> john@mango.iss.nus.sg (John Waterworth) writes:
>
>>The code-decode and, hence,
>>the semiotic model depend on the idea of shared knowledge, usually
>>called mutual knowledge. But in reality, there is little, sometimes no,
>>mutual knowledge. Communication is risky and error-prone, often largely
>>erroneous.
>
>Careful does it!  You're falling into one pole of the individual vs
>society as primary debate.
>
>It is hardly fair to say that there is "little, sometimes no, mutual
>knowledge".  You're communicating in English which myself and all the
>others presumably comprehend (if not "precisely", which is your
>criticism, whatever "precise" communication is?).  The whole society
>knows to stop at a red traffic sign, and understand the meaning of
>the symbols (1,2,3, ...) of the decimal counting system - all signs
>of society.  We are in fact immersed in mutual knowledge of society,
>but we shouldn't overstate that, because we all have individual knowledge,
>including individual representations of the mutual knowledge, which may
>be difficult to communicate precisely.
>
> 

Well, yes. If I said that I had seen a red light, or something like
that, probably all the people who might read this would know about
traffic lights. When I say "sometimes no mutual knowledge" I mean not
that I sometimes meet people with whom I share no mutual knowledge, but
that with everyone I meet (or mail to), even my good friends, there are
times when mutual knowledge cannot explain how we communicate
(erroneously or otherwise) because I have moved outside of that area of
mutuality. I agree with the bipolar tensions you mention, and feel like
I am suspended somewhere in the middle, too. I have never met anyone
with whom I share no mutual knowledge, but then I have yet to meet some
soulmate with whom I share so much that I am never, ever,
misunderstood.

  One of the difficulties seems to lie in your comment that communication
>is "often largely erroneous".  Erroneous with respect to what? - Truth?
>You seem to take a Platonic view of reality where communication is either
>Right or Wrong.  One important criticisms of semiotics and post-modern
>thought is that it is incoherent to speak of Right and Wrong communication
>as implied here.  But they also fall into the trap that some communication
>seems "more right" than others.  We constantly need to be tight rope
>walking between two theoretically pure concepts, which individually
>critique the other, but are not themselves sufficient for our life
>experiences, but together they hold a tension which, at times is
>theoretically straining.
>
No, I was not referring to truth, nor am I a Platonist (in regard to
communication at least). I am referring to intention. I intended you to
understand that when I sent the mail, but you didn't because, as
Americans are fond of saying, you didn't know where I was coming from.
If I intend, say, to make a humourous remark and you get offended (I
don't mean you personally, by the way (avoiding possible
misunderstanding here)), then the communication has been erroneous. It
doesn't matter whether it's true or not (as far as my point goes). I
recognise the incoherence of Right and Wrong communication, and have
never been much of a logical positivist myself.

>Hope these thoughts are helpful. :-)

Well, yes, since they helped me to make the process of communicating
with you a little less erroneous. Or are you being funny?
ZZ
 > Paul Henman
k

-- 
   John Waterworth (john@iss.nus.sg)
   Institute of Systems Science                           Ph: +65 772-3111 
   National University of Singapore                      FAX: +65 778-2571
   Singapore 0511                               


