No, Sung, the Representamen is not a 'name'. You can come up with all the
diagrams in the world, and it won't validate your assertion.
Furthermore, a symbol (which is a 'name') is also not a Representamen. And a
symbol is not defined by an objective reality. Therefore, your 'false' and '
true' name notion is equally - your private view and is not Peircean and I
certainly don't use it.
No such thing as triadic nominalism. Nominalism is, by definition, a view about
'universals' and it rejects their reality, though nominalists 'might' accept
the notion of abstract ideas. The point about nominalism is its focus on
current time/space and particular subjective experiences. ...and, its
rhetorical focus, which is also why I define Derrida as a nominalist.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Sungchul Ji
To: PEIRCE-L
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things
Edwina, Gary F, Helmut, lists,
"Peirce's emphasis is not that 'things are so'...because of their 'name' but
because they have an objective reality.
Our task is to, as far as we can within the semiosic process, get to know
that objective reality and to never, ever,
stop at The Name."
(1) The critical question would be "Can we get to know objective reality
without naming it?". I don't think so, because, according to Peirce, 'name'
(also called representamen) is an essential part of a sign. That is, no sign
can function without it:, i.e., no sign can be triadic without representamen,
as evident in Figure 1:
f g
Object ---------> Representamen ---------> Interpretant
| (or Name) ^
|
|
|
|
|______________________________________|
h
Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of the Peircean sign.
f = sign production; g = sign interpretation; h = grounding
'False names' ('nomialist names' ?) are dyadic in the sense that their
interpretants are not constrained by (or free form) Object, i.e., h is
non-existent. In contrast, 'True names' ('realistic names" ?) are triadic
because their interpretants are constrained by (and hence grounded in)
(2) It may be necessary to distinguish between two kinds of names -- the
true names and the false names. False names' ('nomialist names' ?) are dyadic
in the sense that their interpretants are not constrained by (or are free from)
Object, i.e., h is non-existent. In contrast, 'True names' ('realistic names"
?) are triadic because their interpretants are constrained by (and hence
grounded in) Object, i.e., h is active.
I think Gary F was probably referring to 'true names' in his post, while
Edwina might be warning us against 'false names' that plague human
communication. Edwina is right in pointing out that 'false names' have nothing
to do with Object, since it can induce Interpretant but this Interpretant is
not connected to Object due to lack of h. Names are true if and only if they
are triadic, meaning that all three arrows, f, g and h, must be engaged in
their semiosic actions.
(3) If my interpretation proposed above is right, the ITR (Irreducible
Triadic Relation) template shown in Figure 1 may be useful in resolving some of
the heated debates on the relation between nominalism vs realism that we see
often on these lists. One possible ITR-based solution might be to recognize
two kinds of nominalisms -- the triadic nominalism which is true and the dyadic
nominalism which is false.
All the best.
Sung
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 11:37 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
Gary F - I did indeed comment on your post - I said it was postmodernist
nominalism/relativism. That's clear in itself. Your response was to insult me
privately - and I don't accept that. You may call it a 'casual' response but
this ignores its content.
Again, your outline of 'things are so because they are CALLED so' (my
emphasis) is postmodernist nominalism, focusing on the NAME. Whereas, as I
said, Peirce's emphasis is not that 'things are so'...because of their 'name'
but because they have an objective reality. Our task is to, as far as we can
within the semiosic process, get to know that objective reality and to never,
ever, stop at The Name.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 10:47 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things
How my post sounds to you, or how you choose to label it, is not an issue
for the Peirce list, Edwina. If there is an issue for the list, it’s probably
the distinction between dynamic and immediate objects. You have said nothing
about that issue, or about anything relevant to what my post as a whole
actually says, nothing that calls for a response. I’m only posting this because
you chose to copy to the list a casual response that I sent to you offlist.
Gary f.
} Abyss calls to abyss in the roar of Your channels (Psalms 42:8). [Zohar
1:52a] {
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 23-Oct-15 09:55
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things
Never mind the ad hominem - and the smiley face is irrelevant. Stick to
the issue. Again, the issue is that your outline sounds to me to be pure
postmodernist nominalism/relatavism. The opposite of Peirce's insistence on the
objective reality of objects - regardless of what anyone thinks of that
object....whereas you are saying that 'things are so because they are called
so'!
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: 'Edwina Taborsky'
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing things
That sounds to me like Edwina. J
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 23-Oct-15 09:25
Sounds to me rather similar to postmodern relativism/nominalism.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
We see what we focus on: what we see distinguishes itself from the
visual field: the dynamic object determines the sign to determine its
interpretant. Cognition begins by making distinctions; recognition continues
with emergence of relations from the phaneron, now that things have emerged
from the phaneron.
A road is made by people walking on it; things are so because they
are called so.
— Chuangtse 2 (Watson 1968, 40)
The chaotic background murmur and crackle of neurons firing, cells
doing what they muddily must to stay alive, organizes itself into definite
rhythmic patterns, and lo, forms emerge and begin to branch. Presence parts
from itself and proliferates as the branches take names. But a metaphor
reverses the process by unmaking a familiar distinction, revealing a richer and
stranger relationship. By thus renewing our vision, metaphors ‘literally create
new objects’ (Jaynes 1976, 50) – immediate objects. Naming is creation,
metaphor recreation. “A road” is a metaphor: a road is made by people walking
on it; things are so because they are called so.
Gary f.
} Thought is not an out-of-body experience. [Mark Turner] {
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
--
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
