(Undistorted Figure 1 is attached.) John,
It seems to me that you are discussing the sign triad using terms that are
not too familiar to me, which is not surprising. One advantage of the
diagrammatic approach of Peirce, as I understand it, is that one can
describe a given diagram in more than one sets of words or terms with
equal validity. In other words, there are numerous sets of terms that are
equivalent or isomorphic with each other with respect to their adequacy of
describing a diagram, each set serving a unique function.
The diagram representing the Peircean sign is a good example. If we can
represent the Peircean sign as a categorial diagram (as in Figure 1 below)
that I introduced on these lists about a month ago, your conclusion that
Descartes cogito idea resulted from collapsing objects into ideas (or
signs in my reading) may tantamount to removing the relation f in Figure
1. Similarly, perhaps there are others who collapsed signs and
interpretant thereby removing relation g and h (e.g., Saussure ?), and
still others who collapsed interpretant and object thereby removing
relation h (e.g., Einstein ?).
f g
Object --------- > Sign --------- > Interpretant
| ^
| |
|______________________________________|
h
Figure 1. A categorical diagram of the Peircean sign with three
inter-connected relations designated as f, g, and h.
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
> Subjectivity is everything that separates you from the rest of the
> universe; suprasubjectivity is what joins you to what is "other than your
> subjectivity" without regard to distance or location in space. For details
> see in particular, perhaps,
> <http://www.amazon.com/Objective-Reality-Semiotics-Communication-Cognition/dp/1934078085>,
> although there is an article coming out in CSS title "Subjectivity,
> Suprasubjectivity, and Semiosis".
>
> Relation always requires a basis in some subjectivity, and
> a terminus which is other than that founding subjectivity,
> while the relation itself is over and above its
> foundation. Thus, e.g., ideas are foundations of relation,
> objects are termini of relations, but the relation itself
> is what provenates from the foundation as over and above
> (suprasubjective respecting) that basis. It was in
> collapsing objects into ideas (conflating the two) that
> was the essential of Descartes' "cogito" idea as
> nominalistic.
>
> (hope this helps)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sungchul Ji [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 18:38
> To: Deely, John N.
> Cc: Jon Awbrey; Edwina Taborsky; Gary Fuhrman; [email protected];
> Peirce List
> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions
>
>
>
> Dear John N,
>
>
>
> Let me expose my ignorance.
>
> What is "suprasubjectivity?
>
>
>
> 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<http://www.conformon.net>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> But do note that what all relations have in common is
>
>> suprasubjectivity
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]]
>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 9:55
>
>> To: Edwina Taborsky
>
>> Cc: Gary Fuhrman;
>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Peirce List
>
>> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions
>
>>
>
>> Re: Edwina Taborsky
>
>> At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13840
>
>>
>
>> Edwina,
>
>>
>
>> Setting terminology aside for just a moment, there is at present a
>
>> general lack of understanding as to what constitutes (1) a relation,
>
>> (2) a triadic relation, (3) a triadic sign relation. Those subjects
>
>> are treated by Peirce in his logic of relative terms and the
>
>> corresponding mathematics of relations, all of which is clear enough
>
>> in his early papers. Without a grasp of that background, most of what
>
>> he writes later is doomed to be mis-interpreted.
>
>>
>
>> Jon
>
>>
>
>> Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Subjectivity is everything that separates you from the rest of the
> universe; suprasubjectivity is what joins you to what is "other than your
> subjectivity" without regard to distance or location in space. For details
> see in particular, perhaps,
> <http://www.amazon.com/Objective-Reality-Semiotics-Communication-Cognition/dp/1934078085>,
> although there is an article coming out in CSS title "Subjectivity,
> Suprasubjectivity, and Semiosis".
>
> Relation always requires a basis in some subjectivity, and
> a terminus which is other than that founding subjectivity,
> while the relation itself is over and above its
> foundation. Thus, e.g., ideas are foundations of relation,
> objects are termini of relations, but the relation itself
> is what provenates from the foundation as over and above
> (suprasubjective respecting) that basis. It was in
> collapsing objects into ideas (conflating the two) that
> was the essential of Descartes' "cogito" idea as
> nominalistic.
>
> (hope this helps)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sungchul Ji [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 18:38
> To: Deely, John N.
> Cc: Jon Awbrey; Edwina Taborsky; Gary Fuhrman; [email protected];
> Peirce List
> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions
>
>
>
> Dear John N,
>
>
>
> Let me expose my ignorance.
>
> What is "suprasubjectivity?
>
>
>
> 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<http://www.conformon.net>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> But do note that what all relations have in common is
>
>> suprasubjectivity
>
>>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]]
>
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2014 9:55
>
>> To: Edwina Taborsky
>
>> Cc: Gary Fuhrman;
>> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Peirce List
>
>> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions
>
>>
>
>> Re: Edwina Taborsky
>
>> At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13840
>
>>
>
>> Edwina,
>
>>
>
>> Setting terminology aside for just a moment, there is at present a
>
>> general lack of understanding as to what constitutes (1) a relation,
>
>> (2) a triadic relation, (3) a triadic sign relation. Those subjects
>
>> are treated by Peirce in his logic of relative terms and the
>
>> corresponding mathematics of relations, all of which is clear enough
>
>> in his early papers. Without a grasp of that background, most of what
>
>> he writes later is doomed to be mis-interpreted.
>
>>
>
>> Jon
>
>>
>
>> Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
>>> Gary F - thanks for this introduction.
>
>>>
>
>>> I think it's important to clarify that, first, the interactions
>
>>> between the sign and the object; and the sign and the interpretant,
>
>>> are relations - my use of this term has prompted serious criticism on
>
>>> the Peirce list! I continue to use the Peircean term of
>
>>> 'representamen' for this mediate sign...rather than sign. I confine
>
>>> the term 'sign' to the full triad of object-representamen-interpretant.
>
>>>
>
>>> And I think it's important to acknowledge that there are nine such
>
>>> relations available to semiosis - not just the three of icon, index
>
>>> and symbol - which refer anyway, only to the relation of the
>
>>> representamen to the object and ignore the other two vital semiosic
>
>>> processes of the representamen-in-itself and the relation to the
>>> interpretant.
>
>>>
>
>>> Edwina
>
>> --
>
>>
>
>> academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
>
>> my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list:
>
>> http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
>
>> isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
>
>> oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
>
>> facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
>
>>
>
>>
>
>
JohnD_09032014.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
----------------------------- 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 .
