Hi,
In CP 1.1 reproduced as (070514-1) in the biosemiotics post dated 7/5/2014
(see Attachment below), Peirce predicted the existence of “simple concepts
applicable to every subject”. In the same post, I proposed that one of the
possible “simple concepts applicable to every subject” that Peirce was
referring to may be Peirce’s own concept of “irreducible triadicity” which
I alternatively called the “irreducible triadic relation’ (ITR). To
[biosemiotics:8730] dated 6/30/2015, I attached a table entitled “The
universality of ITR (Irreducible Triadic Relation)” applying ITR to 13
different subjects, ranging from (i) quantum mechanics to (ii) enzymology,
(iii) gnergetics (study of the information-energy driving all
self-organizations), (iv) semiotics, (v) category theory, (vi)
metaphysics, and to (vii) religions.
The purpose of this post is to expand the 6/30/2015 table to include one
more item, i.e., Psychology, in the form of the emotion-cognition-belief
triad (or the emotion-cognition-credition triad as referred to by H.-F.
Angel and his coworkers; see References [10, 11, 12]). This new triad is
shown in Row 9 in the table attached to this post entitled “The university
of ITR”, and this new entry is similar to the rest of the triads in the
table in the sense that it is a member of the ur-category, the category to
which all categories belong. In addition, the ECC
(emotion-cognition-credition) triad may share special similarities with the
triads in Rows 2, 3, and 5.
The idea to apply the ITR concept to the emotion-cogntion-belief triad was
stimulated by the following quotations (with the key words highlighted by
me) from M. Shermers’s book, “The Believing Brain” (see Reference [13]
given below the table):
“. . . What I *want to* *believe* based on *emotions *and what I
*should (070815-1) believe *based on *evidence* do not
always coincide. I’m a skeptic not
because I do not want to *believe*, but because I want to *know*. How
can we tell the difference between what we *would like* to be true and
what *is* actually true ? . . . The answer is *science*. We live in the
Age
of Science, in which *beliefs* are supposed to be *grounded* in rock-solid
evidence and *empirical data*. . . . .” [13, p. 2]
“. . . scientists are people too, no less subject to the whims of *emotion *
(070815-2)
and the pull of *cognitive *biases to shape and reinforce *beliefs*.” [13,
P. 6].
I am assuming that a significant part of the meanings of these two quotes
can be captured with what I came to refer to as the
“emotion-cognition-credition” (ECC) triad that I first learned about in the
2014 Credition Conference held in Graz, Austria. One significance of the
ECC triad may be that it underlies all human actions and decision makings,
including all common human behaviors as well as uncommon behaviors such as
self-immolations and suicide bombings.
If you have any questions or comments, let me know.
All the best.
Sung
______________________Attachement____________________
--------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
*> Subject: Burgin’s Fundamental Triads as Peirceasn Signs.*
*> From: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected] <[email protected]>>*
*> Date: Sat, July 5, 2014 5:33 pm*
*> To: [email protected] <[email protected]>*
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Stephen R on the Peirce list cited Peirce as saying:
>
> "The undertaking which this volume inaugurates is to (070514-1)
> make a philosophy like that of Aristotle, that is to say, to
> outline a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to
> come, the entire work of human reason, in philosophy of
> every school and kind, in mathematics, in psychology,
> in physical science, in history, in sociology, and in
> whatever other department there may be, shall appear
> as the filling up of its details. The first step toward
> this is to find simple concepts applicable to every
> subject." CP 1.1
>
> At least one of the potential "simple concepts" that Peirce is referring
> to above may turn out to be his concept of "irreducible triadicity"
> embedded in the following quote that Jon recently posted and further
> explained in Figure 1 and (070514-4):
>
> “Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic. (070514-2)
> A definition of a sign will be given which no more
> refers to human thought than does the definition of
> a line as the place which a particle occupies, part
> by part, during a lapse of time. Namely, a sign is
> something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant
> sign determined or created by it, into the same sort
> of correspondence with something, C, its object, as
> that in which itself stands to C. It is from this
> definition, together with a definition of “formal”,
> that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic.
> I also make a historical review of all the definitions
> and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my
> definition is no novelty, but that my non-psychological
> conception of logic has virtually been quite generally
> held, though not generally recognized.” (NEM 4, 20–21).
>
> a b
> C --------> A --------> B
> | ^
> | |
> |______________________|
> c
>
> Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of the principle of irreducible
> triadicity as applied to the definition of a sign. A = sign; B =
> interpretant; and C = object. a = the sign-object relation (which can be
> iconic, indexical or symbolic); b = the sign-interpretant relation (which
> can be rheme, dicisign or argument); c = the object-interpretant relation
> (which is lacking in Peircean semiotics but may be provided by
> microsemiotics [1] or biosemiotics (e.g., [2, 3, 4]).
>
> “A is determined by C and determines B in such away (070514-3)
> that C is indirectly determined by B.”
>
--
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
Universality of ITR_table_07082015.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document
----------------------------- 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 .
