Lists, The last paragraph in the earlier message contained errors--some of which were caused by the autocorrect function on my email software. It is driving me crazy, because it refuses to let terms like rheme and dicisign stay as I've typed them.
It should read: Couldn't we simplify matters by saying that no rheme (taking it as an unsaturated sign in isolation from its other possible connections) commits itself to anything? Only a rheme that is part of a larger dicisign involves such a commitment. If that is right, then the reason icons commit themselves to nothing at all is that such signs, taken by themselves, are never more than a rheme. --Jeff Jeff Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy NAU (o) 523-8354 ________________________________________ From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2014 1:22 PM To: [email protected]; 'Peirce List' Subject: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:7077] iconic commitment (was: Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6) Gary F., Edwina, Lists, I find myself agreeing with both sides in this disagreement. Am I confused? Icons themselves involve "connectivity and thus continuity" because a qualisign may be connected to a token figure and a rule for interpreting those connections--and not yet have the kind of object and interpretant needed to make a positive assertion of fact. As such, I read the claim that "icons commit themselves to nothing at all" to be based on an understanding of what is needed for a sign to involve such a commitment. The kinds of commitment that he is talking about is similar in kind to what a person does when making an affidavit. When those three things are connected to one another as parts of our percepts, we are then in a position to make a perceptual judgment about some object. In making such a judgment, those three connected things can function as qualisign, iconic sinsign, and iconic legisign--where we attribute qualities with an intensity to some object at a place and a time. At this point, we have enough for a dicisign--and an assertion is thereby made. Couldn't we simplify matters by saying that no theme taking as an unsaturated sign alone commits itself to anything? One a rheme that is part of a larger design involves such a commitment. If that is right, then the reason icons commit themselves to nothing at all is that such signs, taken by themselves, are never more than a rheme. --Jeff Jeff Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy NAU (o) 523-8354 ________________________________________ From: Gary Fuhrman [[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2014 9:45 AM To: [email protected]; 'Peirce List' Subject: [biosemiotics:7077] iconic commitment (was: Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6) ET: nowhere in my post did I disagree with Peirce that 'icons commit themselves to nothing at all'. Where do you come up with that conclusion? GF: The first sentence of your previous post said: “I think that Icons commit themselves to connectivity and thus continuity”. Now you claim to have agreed with Peirce that 'icons commit themselves to nothing at all'. I think that’s enough to show that any further comment would be superfluous, and any further attempt at dialogue along these lines would be fruitless. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 4-Oct-14 12:11 PM Subject: [biosemiotics:7075] Re: Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6 Gary F - nowhere in my post did I disagree with Peirce that 'icons commit themselves to nothing at all'. Where do you come up with that conclusion? Nor do I disagree with the 'fortuitous variations in reproduction' play a role in adaptation. I've constantly focused on the vital role of chance/Firstness. My comment was on the nature of the connections, where I pointed out that the function of Thirdness was not merely mediation but also continuity of type. It isn't easy for novelty to get Thirdness to change! Therefore, chance - if we consider it only as randomness (and I don't think it is)...is necessary restrained within the general constraints of Thirdness. Constructive deviations do not, in my view, emerge within random chance mutations -- and Peirce also rejected that evoluation/adaptation was guided only by mechanical randomness and held that an agapastic 'connected and informed' force was the key agent in adaptation/evolution). Chance or Firstness is a much stronger force than mere mechanical randomness. Its connectedness enables it to offer informed potentiality rather than mechanical uninformed randomness. As for my disagreement with your 'Man-as-Sinner' - we'll have to leave it at that. I disgree and point to the various research on complex adaptive systems which disagree with the one-way linearity of your view. I strongly promote CAS (complex adapative systems) functioning in all realms - biological as well as societal, economic, etc..and view semiosis as the basic process in the CAS....lots of articles on biology as a CAS and the saltational dynamics that take place. ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary Fuhrman<mailto:[email protected]> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ; 'Peirce List'<mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2014 11:50 AM Subject: RE: [biosemiotics:7072] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6 Edwina, I guess you don’t agree with Peirce that icons “commit themselves to nothing at all” (MS 599, as quoted). You also seem to disagree with his suggestion that “fortuitous variations in reproduction” (or what you call “deviations from the norm”) play a role in evolution analogous to the role of icons in cognition (and the role of chance as Firstness in Peirce’s cosmology). This may well indicate a major difference between you and Peirce concerning Firstness as a mode of being. I’m more surprised, though, at your denial that this is an age of mass extinction in biology — the seventh in the history of the planet, by the usual count of evolutionary biologists, and the first to be caused mainly by a single species (guess who). What I hear from biologists is that biodiversity is in steep decline. I’d like to see your evidence that the complexity of the biosphere is increasing … but not at the cost of distracting the list from the main argument of NP. So I’ll just leave it at that. gary f. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 4-Oct-14 10:38 AM To: Gary Fuhrman; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; 'Peirce List' Subject: [biosemiotics:7072] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Natural Propositions, Chapter 3.6 Gary F wrote: 1) "Icons, representing Firstness, commit themselves to nothing, but their connection (Thirdness) with experiential external Secondnesses constitutes information. The Dicisign is the kind of sign which actually makes such a connection. The generalized (and fallible!) commitment to that connection is what we call “knowledge” or “belief” and is represented by assertion as a speech act. The analogous commitment in biology is the adaptation of the species, which furthers the survival of its form (sometimes by modifying it)." I think that Icons commit themselves to connectivity and thus continuity- even though in themselves they convey no information; what is vital is their role of connectivity. And this connectivity is to Thirdness which functions as the general communal long term mode of identity. Therefore, this is not merely to promote adaptation of the species, which I suggest is informed more by deviations from the norm; it functions to promote continuity and robust stability of the species. Deviations emerge within connections with other Sign systems that provide their information to the 'home system'. 2) I don't think we live in a 'biological age of mass extinction'. Species always die and new ones or adaptations of the old, emerge. I'd say we are living in a biological age, as always, which operates as a complex adaptive system - and this complexity is increasing, which promotes both increasing decay and diversity. [I'd certainly agree with the 'information overload' comment!] 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 .
