The C.S. Peirce maxim (see "axiom"), to consider the practical effects what getting clear on a phenomenon, or idea of same, is not that far off from Wittgenstein's doctrine: consider uses to discover meaning.
But isn't LW talking about "of a word" (its uses) whereas Peirce is talking about "ideas"?
Sure, but coming from a Tractatus background, a "word" might be any token, including visual, such as in the language of film (a topic in semiotics). The image of a tree in some private sky visual field is just as much a meme in play, at the same logical level, one could maintain, in a web we might call language (or Universe; leave nothing out).
Our Cascadian Pragmatism encompasses American Pragmatism as conventionally presented, but then extends it along a timeline both back to William Blake and forward through Buckminster Fuller. Pragmatism: from Blake to Bucky.
Wittgenstein gets pulled in directly via Rorty, a student of John Dewey's contribution. I make sure to include Jane Addams and her Chicago matrix.
In talking about "effects" we might remember "connotations" versus "denotations". In the embedded video, we talk about our idea of "a tree" with reference to the usual primitive drawing, elaborate painting, or photograph, of a special case instance of said tree type.
However it also matters that "a tree" is a data structure, relating to sorting, to taxonomy, and "tree" (the data structure) relates to "graph" as in "network" in logico-cogsci type language games, i.e. where abstractions come in big time.
The mundane phenomenological tree over which Jean Paul Sartre might've felt nausea (because tripping or whatever) is psychologically connected to many other meanings of tree, which have a push-pull effect, not just metaphorically, but literally in a word2vec weighting sense.
Words (tokens) have "meaning trajectories" after all. In a high dimensional vector space. Now ask "what does 'space' mean?". Exactly.
To take another example: Pierce is keen to convey a clear idea of what he means by "abduction". Hypotheses don't come from nowhere, willy-nilly. They say an hypothesis is an "educated guess" so what makes a guess "educated"? Abduction involves not wasting time on poorly chosen hypotheses, one might say.
But here in the Cascadian context, obsessed as we are with UFOs and BigFoot (folklore), we can't help but consider "abduction" as more X-Files in flavor.
I take it further in sharing an executable kind of logic, a computer language, a namespace, in which the idea of "abduction" is well-positioned to explain "decorator syntax".
To link Peirce's abduction with Python's, we might say that an encounter with an alien mindset might motivate one to undergo various "duckrabbit" experiences whereby one's educated guesses, one's inferences, now come from a different place.
Undergoing a "paradigm shift" entails introducing practical, operational shifts in one's onboard programming, such that one's expectations going forward may be altered.
