What if I was to take Object-Representamen-Interpretant as the Triad I was using as the model for Reality Ethics Aesthetics so that the First (Object) would be the initial element, the thought-feeling that initiates a process of consideration. The Second Representamen would be the blunt presence of the ethical elements that might in conversation or conflict with the Object form the basis for the Interpretant, the third, which would actually become an act or an expression or both. In other words could Reality Ethics and Aesthetics, which I find useful as a means of consciously arriving at solutions. be calibrated in such a way as to "fall into" the Pierce progression in all of its pristine complexity?
This is the first of what may be more than one response. Cheers, S Again did you say if semiosic is Peirce? It seems like a "special" term to me. Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Stephen C. Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
