Jon, Edwina, List, I also think it's time to end this debate, where everything has been said and even repeated. I remain in the Discovery Sciences, in Peirce's Well of Truth, where only the Exact Thinking he advocates prevails. I carefully document each step and each stair to be climbed, I finalize what he started, and I arrive at the true "*Speculative Grammar, or the general theory of the nature and meanings of signs*" (CP 1.191) that he envisions.
As far as semiotics is concerned, all that remains for me to do is to exploit results that have the status of theorems and publish a 21st-century Syllabus... Regards, Robert Marty Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty *https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>* Le mar. 2 déc. 2025 à 18:12, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 > > On Sat, Nov 29, 2025 at 4:17 AM robert marty <[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://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <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.
