Helmut, List: Why would that distinction be "not bridgeable"? The map is a *sign *of the territory, just as anyone's knowledge of an object consists of *signs *of that object. In both cases, *semiosis* connects them. Of course, in my view, it connects *everything *in the universe, conceived as an immense semiosic continuum.
"Thing-in-itself" is the established philosophical term in English for Kant's "*Ding an sich*" in the original German. It has nothing to do with persistence or existence, only whether there is something real but incognizable (noumenon) underlying any and every object that we perceive (phenomenon). Kant says yes (so does Jack), Peirce says no (so do I). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 9:36 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Edwina, Jon, List, > > Jon, with "Epistemic cut" (Term by Howard Pattee) I meant the not > bridgeable distinction between, metaphorically, or is it metonymically, the > map and the territory (Term by Alfred Korzybski). > Ding an sich: "An" means "at". "An sich" is translated by Google with "per > se", but that is latin. "Thing in itself" to me sounds like a matrjoschka. > I would prefer "thing of itself", as I think, what is meant, is > persistence, which is existence as long as it exists. The question "does a > thing in itself exist?" might be replaced with first "does a thing > persist?", and is answered with "yes", and second with "is the persistence > of a thing due to the thing?", meaning, does it exist (for some time) of > itself? > > I think, only partly. A thing keeps its form firstly due to its matter, > but secondly, due to universal laws like cohesion, Van-Der-Waals-forces. > And the matter consists of tokens of universal types (particles...). So the > persistence of a thing, at least of a trivial (not complex) thing is not > self-organized. Self-organized persistence too exists, is called > homeostasis, and applies e.g. to complex adaptive systems in dissipative > processes. I would say, these CASses, if you call them things too, "exist > of themselves", with "of" meaning self-organized, which Maturana called > "autopoiesis". but of course the matter, which flows through their > dissipative processes, is again governed by universal laws. So, if with "in > itself" is meant "completely and only because of itself", then there is > obviously not such thing. > > Best, Helmut >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
