Stephen - The Peircean format of the Sign is an active process of a triad of
interactions: Object-Representamen-Interpretant. And it's broken down into an
even more explicit set of: Dynamic Object-Immediate Object/Representamen/and
Emotional Interpretant-Energetic Interpretant-Logical or Final Interpretant.
AND...each of these can be further fine-tuned by operating in one of the three
categorical modes of Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness. .....Phew...gets quite
complex.
BUT - to try to set up a comparative analogy, as you do, by comparing your set
of Reality, Ethics and Aesthetics to only one part of the Peircean triad, that
of the Iconic, Indexical and Symbolic relations (in the Peircean triad these
terms refer to the relation between the Representamen and the Object)...is, in
my view, problematic.
It's problematic only in the sense that it accepts only part of the meaning
from the Peircean triad - the meaning of 'what is an iconic interaction; what
is an indexical interaction; what is a symbolic interaction'....but, it ignores
the essential 'part-role' of this interaction in the full Peircean Sign. That
is, the Peircean Sign isn't made up of only this ONE interaction (that between
the Representamen and the Object). It's a triad in itself - and requires all
three: that between the Representamen and the Object; that of the
Representamen-in-itself; and that between the Representamen and the
Interpretant. Your triadic set is not, in my view, a Peircean sign, or even,
anything semiosic. It is a triad that refers to three quite different modes of
thought and behaviour (reality, ethical, aesthetic) and you have tried to
explain them (I think) more clearly by using the Peircean icon/index/symbol
analogy.
But - again, it's not a semiosic Sign or even a semiosic process in my view and
falls into the same error as Sung's many similar assertions that a set of three
is an 'irreducible semiosic Sign'. Again, the basic nature of the Peircean Sign
is its significant closure, into 'one triad', as that set of three relations
or interactions. None of them can stand alone in the Peircean Sign, whereas
your set of Reality, Ethics, Aesthetics, can each stand alone.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen C. Rose
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
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
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Peirce List
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
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Benjamin Udell ; Peirce-L
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
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Benjamin Udell ; Peirce-L
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
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
