Stephen - the term 'semiosic' is an adjective and is/has been used frequently in publications referring to semiosis/semiotics etc...by quite a few people, not only by myself. Google the term. As for whether Peirce used it, I've no idea and am not going to scroll through his work.
Now, to your question. I don't, at first glance, think that your triad works as a semiosic Sign, i.e., made up of the triad of Relations within the Object-Representamen-Interpretant. The point is, each of your three: Reality, Ethics, Aesthetics, can each stand alone; they are not Relations; they do not really depend on each other for their existence. However, I can certainly see your set of three interactions, almost necessary interactions, where Reality comes up with a situation, that is then mediated by one's Ethical Standards, but I don't see how this leads to Aesthetics, unless one wants to understand the last term as the 'civilized thing to do'. That is..I can certainly see how the process works when you outline it in this manner, and how social behaviour MUST be restrained and mediated by a moral set (Ethics) such that the result is 'civilized' (Aesthetics). My problem simply remains - that each of these three doesn't require the other to exist, BUT, certainly, as a whole - your outline explains very well how the whole set of three must operate in a society. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Stephen C. Rose To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce List Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 10:02 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection 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 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 .
