JAS, Robert, List The definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same things – and we seem to be doing that. As I’ve said before – these are two opposite views of the semiosic nature and emergence of objects. The question then becomes – which one is what Peirce advocated? JAS wrote: Peirce's semeiotic studies all signs, not just concrete sinsigns/tokens; and in accordance with his thoroughgoing synechism (see that thread <https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-11/msg00084.html>), each of those is an individual replica/instance of a general legisign/type. Human minds do not construct such representations, they are real--they are as they are regardless of what anyone thinks about them, including whether humans happen to have invented linguistic legisigns/types for them. ET- I consider that the above is an incorrect interpretation of Peircean semiosis 1] Problem: that All signs are individual/replica/instances of a general legisign type. This ignores the FACT that four of the ten sign classes lack a legisign in their composition and cannot be logically or indexically linked to a legisign. In addition, despite the frequent use by JAS of the blackboard analogy, I do not consider the blackboard to be a well of Legisigns/Thirdness habits in some mode of pre-reality, [a mode never referred to by Peirce] but to be a ‘well’ of pure energy [ chaos, the ‘original vague potentiality’] – which then becomes instants [2ns] which then form their own habits [3ns]. See 1.412 and 6.203. And note that this new instant/mark, which is ‘a mere accident’, must ‘stay for a while ‘until some beginning of a habit has been established’ 6.204. The habit, thus, is a posteriori- not a priori. 2] Problem: The insistence that ALL signs are connected to a legisign or habit, ignores the FACT that, as Peirce wrote, habits/Types are logical a posteriori developments and thus, enable totally new objects connected to Types in the universe. There is no evidence that Types are, as JAS insists, a priori even as potential forms. Habits function as ‘the principle of habit [1.412] not as the habit form itself. Indeed, one must acknowledge Peirce’s constant insistence on the concept that mind exists as matter – which is more Aristotelian realism than scholastic realism; the two cannot be separated. 3] Problem: Human Minds DO construct the representations of real objects in the world – and there is no certainty that these Interpretant signs are the full data content of the External Object that we actually encounter as the Dynamic Object. 4] Then- I don’t see how denying infinite investigation by an infinite community has any relationship to scholastic realism. Or pragmaticism. I don’t see that either theory requires this infinite community and infinite exploration. And as has been pointed out, reliance on such a community is non-empirical speculation. Again, and this has been said many times - JAS fails to explain the emergence of novelty – ie – objects which are novel and are unlike any previous habit but are able to form new habits and replicate. To say, as JAS does, that their nature and habits are linked to an a priori Thirdness is without evidence and is a deterministic theory- and in addition, separates Mind and Matter, while Peirce unites them. Peirce on the other hand, repeatedly explains novelty – something which JAS totally ignores! As Peirce notes: “In biology, the idea of arbitrary sporting is First, heredity is Second, the process whereby the accidental characters become fixed is Third” [6.33]. Note the order – a posteriori. And Peirce writes: “the tychastic development of thought, then, will consist in slight departures from habitual ideas in different directions indifferently, quite purposeless and quite unconstrained whether by outward circumstances or by force of logic”, these new departures being followed by unforeseen results which end to fix some of them as habits more than others” [6.307] And notes: “that specification, pure spontaneity of life as a character, infinitesimal departures from law are constantly taking place” [6.64] Peirce rejects that “‘all the arbitrary specifications of the universe were introduced in one dose, in the beginning, if there was a beginning, and that variety and complication of nature has always been just as much as it is now, But I, for my part, think that the diversification, the specification, has been continually taking place”. [6.57]. And Peirce writes: “By thus admitting pure spontaneity or life as a character of the universe, acting always and everywhere though restrained within narrow bounds by law, producing infinitesimal departures from law continually, and great ones with infinite infrequency, I account for all the variety and diversity of the universe” [6.59]. None of the above outlines by Peirce support the analysis by JAS that all signs, not just concrete sinsigns/tokens; and in accordance with his thoroughgoing synechism (see that thread <https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-11/msg00084.html>), each of those is an individual replica/instance of a general legisign/type. I note again what Peirce wrote: - he acknowledges spontaneity, infinitesimal and great departures from law…and that these new departures from law [Thirdness] will form their own habits or laws [Thirdness]. What else is there to say? Even insanity has its limits. So I’m finished with this thread. I have no wish to change JAS’s views [impossible!] but I just want to be clear about what I see as Peirce’s analysis.
Edwina > On Dec 1, 2025, at 7:16 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > List: > > Peirce's semeiotic studies all signs, not just concrete sinsigns/tokens; and > in accordance with his thoroughgoing synechism (see that thread > <https://list.iu.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2025-11/msg00084.html>), each of > those is an individual replica/instance of a general legisign/type. Human > minds do not construct such representations, they are real--they are as they > are regardless of what anyone thinks about them, including whether humans > happen to have invented linguistic legisigns/types for them. > > What an infinite community would affirm after infinite investigation is > precisely how Peirce explicates the meaning of truth in practical > terms--those beliefs whose corresponding habits of conduct would never be > confounded by any possible future experience. Again, this is a regulative > principle and an intellectual hope, not an actual achievement. Denying it is > rejecting scholastic realism and thus pragmaticism, i.e., straightforwardly > disagreeing with Peirce himself. > > Medically unexplained symptoms are still symptoms and therefore indexical > sinsigns/tokens that are replicas/instances of legisigns/types. The fact that > they are currently unexplained--we do not yet know what underlying conditions > are their dynamical objects--does not entail that they are inexplicable; and > according to Peirce, logic forbids us to assume that they are inexplicable. > After all, the medical profession presumably has not given up on explaining > them eventually. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 4:17 AM robert marty <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Jon, List, >> Jon, I couldn't get back to you sooner for personal reasons. >> Admittedly, Gemini 3 and ChatGPT 4 are not on the list, but neither is >> Charles Sanders Peirce, which is a pity. His semiotics is not built for >> infinity. It studies signs that are concrete objects, so it presupposes a >> world with objects and human minds that construct representations by >> establishing connections between objects according to particular modalities. >> There must also be a human community that seeks and establishes revisable >> laws, held to be accurate until proven otherwise, which govern these objects >> and their relations. If, in the future, a world without objects or humans >> comes into being, there will be no more semiotics unless there remains a >> world populated by robots endowed with quasi-minds that allow it to continue >> in a degenerate form. >> Admittedly, the current scientific consensus recognizes that there is no >> proof that the laws of nature are eternal. However, they appear to be stable >> and universal within the limits of our observations, without ruling out the >> possibility that they may have been different in the past or may become >> different in the future. For this to be the case, there must be >> observations, i.e., objects and human beings to observe. To evoke an >> infinite community and an infinite number of investigations is pure >> speculation with no practical consequences. Eternity is a concept that, by >> definition, cannot be measured experimentally. We are therefore not going to >> stop doing semiotics while we wait for the end of eternity. Personally, I am >> not in that situation. >> >> I am not aware of any reservations you have regarding LLMs. I do not read >> all of your writings, just as you do not read all of mine. To support such a >> claim, one usually cites at least one reference. Indeed, your reservations >> are only of interest if they are shared by a large part of the community >> that is constantly discussing them. >> >> With regard to qualia, it is incorrect to say that "human scientists have >> indeed already formulated the laws that govern our sensations of colors, >> smells, pain, etc." Scientists have not formulated any universal laws about >> qualia. They have established robust correlations between brain activity and >> subjective experiences, and have proposed explanatory theories, but the >> mystery of their nature remains. No law in the universe explains how an >> electrical signal becomes the color "Red." The challenge remains to >> understand how and why the brain produces these conscious experiences, and >> whether a unified theory is possible. >> >> As for a "specific example of an iconic sinsign/token that is associated >> with the sensation of red and is not a replica/instance of an iconic >> legisign/type," there is nothing better than asking ChatGPT (despite your >> reservations). Here are some examples from the medical field, many of which >> are familiar to everyone. These are "medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) or >> functional symptoms. These are real, observable, and sometimes measurable >> symptoms, but no known disease, structural abnormality, or laboratory >> explanation has been identified despite evaluation." >> But you asked for an example of the sensation of redness. So I asked ChatGPT >> if, among MUS, some in the dermatological field were involved in skin >> redness. Here is its response: "Several dermatological symptoms, including >> skin redness, can be part of MUS (Medically Unexplained Symptoms) or >> conditions known as functional or idiopathic. Here is the first of the seven >> most recognized cases: >> >> 1. Intermittent facial erythema (flushing) with no identified cause: sudden >> redness of the face or neck, often accompanied by heat. >> >> 1. No identifiable rosacea >> >> 2. No allergies or food intolerances >> >> 3. Thyroid function, carcinoid, mast cell, menopause, etc., >> normal >> >> This type of "idiopathic flushing" is relatively common in MUS. >> >> Summary: "Several forms of skin redness can be considered medically >> unexplained symptoms, particularly intermittent flushing, functional >> neurovascular redness, certain idiopathic erythemas, and manifestations >> related to dysautonomia." >> >> Regards, >> >> Robert Marty >> >> Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy >> fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty >> <https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty> >> https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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]";>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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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]";>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.
