I find myself with a wish that might be also a solution. The best posts
here IMO have been illuminated by excellent and often ignored quotes from
Peirce. I would suggest that this be the common way to proceed -- This is
after all a posthumous author in Nietzsche's sense and much that he said is
available only to a few. Circulate Peirce and the deed so devoutly set
forth will be done.
PEIRCE
261. Eighth: A Rhematic Symbol or Symbolic Rheme [e.g., a
common noun] is a sign connected with its Object by an association of
general ideas in such a way that its Replica calls up an image in the mind
which image, owing to certain habits or dispositions of that mind, tends to
produce a general concept, and the Replica is interpreted as a Sign of an
Object that is an instance of that concept. Thus, the Rhematic Symbol
either is, or is very like, what the logicians call a General Term. The
Rhematic Symbol, like any Symbol, is necessarily itself of the nature of a
general type, and is thus a Legisign. Its Replica, however, is a Rhematic
Indexical Sinsign of a peculiar kind, in that the image it suggests to the
mind acts upon a Symbol already in that mind to give rise to a General
Concept. In this it differs from other Rhematic Indexical Sinsigns,
including those which are Replicas of Rhematic Indexical Legisigns. Thus,
the demonstrative pronoun "that" is a Legisign, being a general type; but
it is not a Symbol, since it does not signify a general concept. Its
Replica draws attention to a single Object, and is a Rhematic Indexical
Sinsign. A Replica of the word "camel" is likewise a Rhematic Indexical
Sinsign, being really affected, through the knowledge of camels, common to
the speaker and auditor, by the real camel it denotes, even if this one is
not individually known to the auditor; and it is through such real
connection that the word "camel" calls up the idea of a camel. The same
thing is true of the word "phoenix." For although no phoenix really exists,
real descriptions of the phoenix are well known to the speaker and his
auditor; and thus the word is really affected by the Object denoted. But
not only are the Replicas of Rhematic Symbols very different from ordinary
Rhematic Indexical Sinsigns, but so likewise are Replicas of Rhematic
Indexical Legisigns. For the thing denoted by "that" has not affected the
replica of the word in any such direct and simple manner as that in which,
for example, the ring of a telephone-bell is affected by the person at the
other end who wants to make a communication. The Interpretant of the
Rhematic Symbol often represents it as a Rhematic Indexical Legisign; at
other times as an Iconic Legisign; and it does in a small measure partake
of the nature of both.
Peirce: CP 2.262 Cross-Ref:††
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Bev Corwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> I very much enjoyed the focus on applied concepts of the discussion and
> found it very insightful. I don't see the reference of emptiness so much,
> but more universal, perhaps.
>
> Bev
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd agree with Ben; I don't think the list can be reduced to 'any and
>> all topics'. It's a Peircean list.
>>
>> Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think, write and
>> speak in signs' and that Peircean research was 'devoted to signs'...that
>> your subsequent conclusion that 'any topics that we 'think, write and
>> speak' are therefore valid on a Peircean list is a logical fallacy of
>> circular reasoning. You've reduced the meaning of 'sign' to emptiness.
>>
>> As for Stephen and his matriarchal/patriarchal claims, my view is that
>> they are analytically incorrect; I consider that he has ignored the
>> economic mode and societal infrastructure as primarily causal of both these
>> modes of organization (matriarchy/patriarchy) - but, since these factors
>> are neither Peircean nor even semiosic, then, I have no intention of
>> getting into a debate on this list.
>>
>> But I do acknowledge Stephen Rose's post - for often, even when a post
>> states that it is Peircean related - this relation may be as invalid as
>> Sung's illogical claim above - or, as well, a few posters seem
>> isolate-in-themselves, speaking only for and about their own focus. This
>> can result in a monologue or a dialogue engaged in only by one other
>> person. That's what the 'delete' button is for.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Benjamin Udell <[email protected]>
>> *To:* [email protected]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:17 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Sung, all,Your post implies that we should emulate Peirce to a T but we
>> can't emulate Peirce to a T because we aren't Peirce. PEIRCE-L is for
>> Peirce-related discussion. Peirce himself was not focused on
>> 'Peirce-related' discussion. Instead those who carry on prolonged,
>> multi-post discussions of a given topic should clarify and thematize the
>> topic's relation to Peirce because that is what is promised to subscribers
>> and that is what most subscribers expect.That has been and will continue to
>> be the policy of peirce-l.Best, Ben Udell as co-manager, peirce-l.*
>>
>> On 7/2/2015 5:42 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
>>
>> Bev, Gary, lists,
>>
>> I agree with Bev, because Peirce's whole career was devoted to the study
>> of signs and "Peirce-related" is thus "sign-related", it seems to me.
>> Besides, as I learned it from Peirce, we THINK, WRITE, and SPEAK in SIGNS,
>> and hence whatever we post on these lists should be regarded as
>> Peirce-related in one way or another, including linguistic texts, chemical
>> equations, mathematical formulas, network diagrams, pictures, and whatever
>> else that may emerge in the future as NEW means of communication and
>> representation through the Internet.
>>
>> In other words, for me, semiotics is not yet closed. Its future should
>> not be confined to studying MACRO-SEMIOTICS as constructed by Poinsot,
>> Peirce, and others but should be open to studying both MICRO-SEMIOTICS as
>> currently being developed in biosemiotics (.e.g., DNA as a molecular sign)
>> and what may be called 'COSMO-SEMIOTICS' as may be developed in the future
>> (e.g., viewing spiral galaxies as cosmological signs). Imagine what
>> fantastic syntheses in philosophy Pierce's genius might be accomplishing
>> now were he alive today !
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Sung
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Bev Corwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I enjoy all of the discussions and would prefer more broad than
>>> restrictive frameworks. I consider restricting discussions as more
>>> technocratic tactic / approach and not Perice related in style.
>>>
>>> Bev
>>>
>>>
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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 .
