Hello Claudio, Clark, List, The idea that one sign may be dominant is nicely highlighted in Peirce's discussion of focusing attention on one thing and letting others fade into the background. This ability to focus one's attention is, on Peirce's account, central to the explanation of how we can exert some degree of self control as we interpret signs as thoughts. The index serves the function of directing the attention on one or another object (CP 1.369, 2.256, 2.259, 2.350, 2.428,, 3.434, 4.562, etc.).
--Jeff Jeff Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy NAU (o) 523-8354 ________________________________________ From: Claudio Guerri [claudiogue...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 2:18 PM To: Stephen C. Rose; Clark Goble Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Stephen, Clark, Edwina, List... I think that I wrote already about this subject... but there are two authors that I like very much that constructed some good 'metaphors' for the understanding of the triadic relation. Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser studied Peirce in a Seminar by Farnçois Recanati in Paris, France, during the 50's...??? if somebody knows a good reference, I would be glad to know more about... Lacan was interested in the unconscious from a psychoanalytic point of view, and he learned that besides his "the imaginary" (1ness) and "the symbolic" (3ness, both derived from Ferdinand de Sussure's linguistic sign) he had to add "the real" (2ness) that he defined as "the impossible", « la grimace du réel »... or better (or in a more perverse way): "what never ceases to not join the symbolic" (the translation from the Spanish version is mine...) apparently, the French (original version) is. « ce qui ne cesse de ne pas s'écrire »... I think that it is a good conceptual approach to the Dynamic Object by Peirce. For that and else... he was expelled from the IPA (International Psychoanalytic Association)... Althusser (even if considered a Stalinist by a dear fellow of the Peirce-L) wrote about the "Social Practice"... and (following Peirce) he proposed: a Theoretical Practice (1ness), an Economical Practice (2ness) and a Political Practice (3ness). He did not give a synthetic or unique word to 'baptize' the Theoretical Practice which I consider 'possibilitant' (following Peirce of course), but he stated that the Political Practice is always 'decisive' and that the Economical Practice is 'determinant only in last instance' (I say, because it is the 'real impossible'... and if you don't believe it, follow what will happen with Argentina after the 10th of December...). Pitifully, because of his statements, he was expelled form the PCF (Parti Communiste Français)... But Althusser also added a good explanation (for the Peircean definition of sign): normally, one aspect of the sign will be 'dominant'. Did Peirce say something like that? somewhere? Taking account of what happened to those two scholars... perhaps the 'triadic relation' can be a very dangerous subject...!!!??? All the best Claudio Stephen C. Rose escribió el 30/11/2015 a las 03:26 p.m.: Triadic Philosophy as I have evolved it over its lifetime tends to agree in with what you have said Clark about the triad. With the following exception which I take to be at least somewhat related to Peirce and perhaps to agree with something I have seen in Edwina's posts. The triadic progression is the progression of a sign which originates in the spontanaity of firstness and proceeds through the obstacles set up in secondness and arrives at the expressions and actions made possible by the encounter of 1 and 2. I understand that the premise of Triadic Philosophy, that Reality is all, is hardly consistent with Peirce. Books <http://buff.ly/15GfdqU> http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: <http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl> http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: <http://buff.ly/1wXADj3> http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com<mailto:cl...@lextek.com>> wrote: On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Sungchul Ji <<mailto:s...@rci.rutgers.edu>s...@rci.rutgers.edu<mailto:s...@rci.rutgers.edu>> wrote: f g Real Rose ----------------> Rose -----------> Mental Rose (Firstness) (Secondness) (Thirdness) [World of Structures] [Physical World] [Mental World] | ^ | | |____________________________________| h Peirce’s ontology doesn’t quite follow that. Firstness is the world of raw experience, ideas or possibility, secondness the world of reactions, brute force & actuality and thirdness the world of signs, connections and power (not necessarily mental unless one is careful what one means by that). So depending upon what one means by structure you’d have that in the third universe. Again though one has to be careful with terminology and Peirce’s shifts around a bit over time. ----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to <mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . <mailto:claudiogue...@fibertel.com.ar>
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
