I wish we had had this conversation a year ago! The exposition of my triad is not different from your sense of it. I have never wanted to claim a Pierce authority for my thinking. The origin of Reality Ethics Aesthetics was based on the chapter in Brent that sought to explain how Pierce's mind worked and I saw Reality as the source of all that firstness vagueness, signs and such and then Ethics which I had always related to values as the necessary Index, a means of acknowledging standards for existing in the world, and Aesthetics as action and expression -- thinking that if a philosophy could be developed on such a triad it would be a genuine advance over the binary, virtues-based thinking of the past. That in a nutshell is what was going on and Peirce represented not the beginning of this train of thinking but came closer to the end. Massively important for providing a triadic frame for viewing things. Your iteration of semiosic is appreciated. I am going to assume that if a popular expression is needed semiotic will do.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Peirce List <[email protected]> > *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 <[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 .
