Thanks Edwina. That answers my question. *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen- I'm not sure what you mean! Peirce was, as he himself said many > times, an Aristotelian, in the sense of his understanding that the 'Form', > or habits-of-formation, were generals/universals and were embedded within > the particular instantiation. That is, he was not Platonic - where the > Forms are actually existentially real on their own. > > Edwina > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> ; Peirce List > <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:20 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the > basis for > > "Peirce was Aristotelian" in this context? Or entirely? I agree with your > note but this confuses me. > > *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* > > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Sung - don't divert from the issue by personalizing my criticism. I'm not >> saying that no-one can understand a sign unless they have read as much >> Peirce as I have. I'm saying that you, who has not read Peirce and yet who >> constantly chooses to use Peircean terms in your outline of semiosis, and >> to inform us of 'what these terms mean', then, you HAVE to have read Peirce >> and you have to use them as he used them. >> >> I've said before - that if you choose to use the Peircean semiosis >> differently from that outlined by Peirce, then don't use the same terms. >> Use your own. And don't try to tell us that your use is Peircean when it >> isn't. >> >> And so what if - in yet another of your numbered admonitions to us - you >> tell us that other scholars have made 'fundamental contributions to the >> science of signs'. What does that have to do with your misuse and >> misunderstanding of Peircean terms? >> >> I certainly do assume that secondary sources on Peirce are not equivalent >> to the original writings of Peirce. Your failure to read Peirce in the >> original and your attempts to twist and distort his analysis to suit your >> own outline of the world can't be laid at the feet of either the secondary >> sources or Peirce. It's your outline. >> >> Again, you are the one constantly informing us of the 'meaning' of >> Peircean semiosis - with outlandish claims, including your bizarre >> crosstabs table of the categories, your misunderstanding of the categories, >> your equation of Firstness with a priori, and, now your insistence that the >> Representamen (and that's a Peircean term) is a 'thing'. No, I'm not >> confusing nodes and edges; I don't use them and neither did Peirce. If you >> choose to use them - that's your choice but don't tell us that it is a >> Peircean framework. >> >> That's absurd - to insist that a 'material thing acts as a >> representamen'. Again, you totally fail to understand the nature of and >> function of the representamen within Peircean semiosis. You are merging the >> abstract habit-of-formation (the Representamen in Thirdness) with the >> thing-in-itself (in Secondness). The abstract habits of formation are real >> but not singularly existential; they are embedded within a conceptual or >> material particular existentiality. Pure Aristotle and Peirce was >> Aristotelian. So, a material thing does not act as a representamen; the >> habits of formation act as the representamen and transforms the input data >> from the object into the interpretant. Rather like a syllogism (something >> which you also don't understand - as you showed us a few weeks ago). >> >> This isn't about thermodynamics and semiosis. So again, don't try to >> divert the issue. It's about your failure to understand Peircean semiosis, >> your complete misuse of his analysis and his terms, your attempt to use his >> terms, twisting and turning them, to fit into your own analysis of the >> world - and, when criticized, your constant reflexive retreat into >> diversions and irrelevancies. >> >> Again, read Peirce. And use your own terms and don't misuse his terms. >> >> Edwina >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> >> To: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> >> Cc: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]>; "Clark Goble" <[email protected]>; >> "Benjamin Udell" <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:01 PM >> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis >> for >> >> >> Edwina wrote (073114-1): >>> >>> "Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's (073114-1) >>> original works, rather than, as you do, relying on secondary >>> writings about Peirce and on cherry-quotes of his works." >>> >>> You have been repeating this admonition whenever you want to criticize my >>> views on signs that differ from yours. There are several things that >>> seem >>> wrong with this attitude which I once referred to as "childish", because: >>> (1) You assume that no one can understand what sign is unless he or she >>> studied Peirce as much a as you have. This cannot be true because >>> >>> "There are scholars who made fundamental contributions to (073114-2) >>> the science of signs long before Peirce (1839-1914) was born >>> or independently of Peirce's work, e.g., Saussure (1857-1913)." >>> >>> (2) You assume that secondary sources on Peircean semiotics is not as >>> reliable as Peirce's original writings. This may be true in some cases >>> but not always. >>> >>> (3) The science of signs is "larger" than Peircean semiotics, because >>> >>> "The science of signs is not yet complete and constantly (073114-3) >>> evolving with new advances in our knowledge in natural >>> and human sciences and communication engineering." >>> >>> For these reasons I am inclined to believe that >>> >>> "Anyone, not versed in Peircean semiotics, can discover truth >>> (073114-4) >>> about signs, although Peircean scholarship can often, but not >>> necessarily always, facilitate such discoveries." >>> >>> So, Edwina, whenever you feel like repeating (073114-1), think about the >>> following admonition to you from me: >>> >>> "Edwina, I probably have read more Peirce to be able to (073114-5) >>> discuss signs than you have read thermodynamics to be >>> able to discuss energy." >>> >>> Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's original works, >>>> rather than, as you do, relying on secondary writings about Peirce and >>>> on >>>> cherry-quotes of his works. You wrote: >>>> >>>> "Written words are representamens and spoken (073114-7) >>>> >>>>> (and understood) words are signs." >>>>> >>>> >>>> No. Peircean semiosis is a process; the 'representamen' is not a thing >>>> in >>>> itself but an action of mediation within a triadic process. >>>> >>> >>> It seems to me that you are conflating semiosis and its components that >>> make semiosis possible. In other words, you may be conflating nodes and >>> edges in networks. You cannot have edges without nodes ! Likewise, you >>> cannot have semiosis without material things acting as representamens. >>> If >>> you do not agree, please tryh to come up with an example wherein semiosis >>> takes place without a material thing acting as a representamen (which, by >>> definition, TRIADICALLY mediates object and intepretant, the TRIADICITY >>> being the heart of Peircean semiotics and the category theory). >>> >>> The sign is the full triadic process and not a thing or interpretation. >>>> >>> >>> You seem to be repeating what I said in my response to Clark at 5:04 am >>> July 31, 2014. See Equation (073114-4) therein. >>> >>> In both cases if >>>> you interact with the word, in both its written and spoken form, the >>>> 'word' is an object in the Peircean sense. The difference between the >>>> >>> two has >>> >>>> nothing to do with semiosis or the physics of energy dissipation. >>>> >>> >>> Please read my discussion on this issue with Ben on the PEIRCE-L list >>> dated July 30, 2014 9:08 pm. I think Ben has a much more realistic >>> understanding of the thermodyanamic and semiotic issues involved here. >>> >>> In a semiotic sense, there is no difference between the two because both >>>> are >>>> objects; there is only a material difference in their composition - >>>> similar to frozen and liquid water. >>>> >>> >>> See above. >>> >>> One can go further and consider the word, in both its written and spoken >>>> form 'in itself' as a semiotic sign (as the full triad) because each one >>>> spatially and temporally exists. In its unread form on the paper, the >>>> word >>>> remains a sign (in the triadic form) because it exists as a material >>>> entity on another material entity; when read, it functions as a dynamic >>>> >>> object. >>> >>>> The spoken word functions as a dynamic object. >>>> >>>> >>> See above. >>> >>> >>> Edwina >>>> >>>> >>>> With all the best. >>> >>> Sung >>> __________________________________________________ >>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. >>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy >>> Rutgers University >>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 >>> 732-445-4701 >>> >>> www.conformon.net >>> >>> Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's original works, >>>> rather than, as you do, relying on secondary writings about Peirce and >>>> on >>>> cherry-quotes of his works. You wrote: >>>> >>>> "Written words are representamens and spoken (073114-7) >>>> >>>>> (and understood) words are signs." >>>>> >>>> >>>> No. Peircean semiosis is a process; the 'representamen' is not a thing >>>> in >>>> itself but an action of mediation within a triadic process. The sign is >>>> the >>>> full triadic process and not a thing or interpretation. In both cases >>>> if >>>> you interact with the word, in both its written and spoken form, the >>>> 'word' >>>> is an object in the Peircean sense. The difference between the two has >>>> nothing to do with semiosis or the physics of energy dissipation. In a >>>> semiotic sense, there is no difference between the two because both are >>>> objects; there is only a material difference in their composition - >>>> similar >>>> to frozen and liquid water. >>>> >>>> One can go further and consider the word, in both its written and spoken >>>> form 'in itself' as a semiotic sign (as the full triad) because each one >>>> spatially and temporally exists. In its unread form on the paper, the >>>> word >>>> remains a sign (in the triadic form) because it exists as a material >>>> entity >>>> on another material entity; when read, it functions as a dynamic object. >>>> The >>>> spoken word functions as a dynamic object. >>>> >>>> Edwina >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
