Thanks Edwina.
Quote:
Peirce: CP 8.335 Cross-Ref:††
335. In respect to their relations to their dynamic objects, I
divide signs into Icons, Indices, and Symbols (a division I gave in 1867).
...
End quote
I think it is fair to suggest that Reality Ethics and Aesthetics works as a
sort of "everyperson" triad and that it bears relation to the above.
I see Peirce's full monte as it were as too complex to use as a method of
thinking that would be relevant in any public intellectual sense and vastly
less so in the realms I would like to touch.
Can we arrive at triadic formulations independently of the items noted
in 2.256
if we are explicit in indicating that we are not seeking to replicate the
full scope of Peirce's approach? The answer f course is yes. But does that
do violence to Peirce in your judgment.?
On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Stephen - the triad of object-representamen-interpretant is the basic
> Peircean format for the Sign. The terms of 'icon, index, symbol' refer to
> one aspect of this triad; namely, the Relation between the Object and the
> Representamen. I'd suggest CP 8.335 for an outline of this, and 2.256 for
> an outline of all 9 Relations and how they form the Peircean triad and set
> up the ten classes of Signs.
>
> Edwina
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]>
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* Peirce List <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Friday, July 03, 2015 7:40 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
>
> Edwina wrote:
>
> Words in themselves, as objects, are not semiosic. When words are used
> within a relational interaction (with the self, with others) and are thus
> in a triadic relation (object- representamen-interpretant) ..then, that
> word is a Sign, and is semiosic.
>
> End quote
>
> Semiosic -- is this a term in Peirce? Does it differ from the word
> semiotic?
>
> a triadic relation (object- representamen-interpretant)
>
> Can you suggest other triadic relations in which words are seen as signs?
>
> I fully subscribe to the necessity of words as an aspect of triadic
> thought (remember math is not on my dance card) and it seems to me that if
> you see the root Peirce triad as icon index and symbol that you can infer
> any triad that follows his notion of first, second and third.
>
> Best, S
>
>
>
> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
> Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
>
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Words in themselves, as objects, are not semiosic. When words are used
>> within a relational interaction (with the self, with others) and are thus
>> in a triadic relation (object- representamen-interpretant) ..then, that
>> word is a Sign, and is semiosic.
>>
>> Edwina
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> *From:* Bev Corwin <[email protected]>
>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
>> *Cc:* Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> ; Peirce-L
>> <[email protected]>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:56 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
>>
>> Hi Edwina, Therefore, if your words are not a semiosic concept, are they
>> semioitc?
>>
>> Bev
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bev - an outline of matriarchy/patriarchy is not, in itself, an
>>> 'applied concept of Peircean semiosis'. You may have found the analysis
>>> 'insightful' - I myself found it invalid but our opinions on 'insightful vs
>>> invalid' are not relevant. What is relevant is: what does it have to do
>>> with Peircean semiosis?
>>>
>>> As for 'emptiness' - a claim that X can refer to anything and everything
>>> does not make X a universal *variable* but one without any meaning
>>> whatsoever, in other words, empty. The term 'universal' can apply only to
>>> *attributes*; so, we can say that finite existence is a universal
>>> attribute of all matter on this planet.
>>>
>>> So, to say that 'because we* speak* in words that are signs', then, any
>>> *concept* that we speak of using words, is a semiosic concept - is
>>> invalid. Get it?
>>>
>>> Edwina
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Bev Corwin <[email protected]>
>>> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]>
>>> *Cc:* Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> ; Peirce-L
>>> <[email protected]>
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:18 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
>>>
>>> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
