Thanks Edwina. This will require serious examination. I'll get back to you and list. Cheers, S
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Peirce List <[email protected]> > *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 <[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 > . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
