I'm confused. > ET: my understanding of the 'icon' in that it is not a Sign, even though many seem to consider it as such.
CP: 1, Speculative Grammar, or the general theory of the nature and meanings of signs, whether they be icons, indices, or symbols .... Peirce: CP 1.192 Cross-Ref:†† Evidently CP is among the "many". *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Part of the problem may also be due to my understanding of the 'icon' in > that it is not a Sign, even though many seem to consider it as such. It is > the term for the Relation between the Dynamic Object and the Representamen. > A Sign is a triad and the Icon, as a single Relation, is not a Sign. > > This Relation between the Dynamic Object and the Representamen (which I > also term 'input') can be in any of the three categorical modes and as > such, is termed: icon, index or symbol. > > To actually function as an icon, that 'input sensation' must be in a > Relation or connection. Otherwise, ...nothing. But an iconic input > certainly has no 'committment' in itself as to how it will be 'read' by the > mediative rules of the Representamen or understood within the Interpretant. > That is why it, as Firstness, can be considered as open and offering > potentiality rather than closed actuality. > > So, I'd agree that a Sign (that triad) operating within Firstness would > indeed by nothing but a Rheme (Rhematic Iconic Qualisign). It is only when > an attachment to a more specific categorical mode is made (operating within > Secondness or Thirdness) that a commitment is made, as you point out. > > Thanks for your input. > > Edwina > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Brian Downard" < > jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> > To: <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee>; "'Peirce List'" <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2014 4:22 PM > 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 [g...@gnusystems.ca] > Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2014 9:45 AM > To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; '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:tabor...@primus.ca] > 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:g...@gnusystems.ca> > To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee<mailto:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee> ; 'Peirce > List'<mailto:PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > 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:tabor...@primus.ca] > Sent: 4-Oct-14 10:38 AM > To: Gary Fuhrman; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee<mailto:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee>; > '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 >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
