Helmut, list,
The analogy is:
object - source
sign (or representamen) - encoding
interpretant - decoding
recognizant - destination.
I haven't discussed it in any detail at peirce-l in many years, and
whatever I've written on it at my websites is rather old. So I'm not
eager to launch into a discussion of it right now.
Regarding thirdness: my categories, such as they are, are not Peirce's 3
+ an added 1. The semiotic correlates are the only case of my thinking
(that I can recall off-hand) where one sees Peirce's 3 plus my added 1.
The Talcott Parsons AGIL- scheme doesn't seem to resemble anything of mine.
One of the reasons that I don't want to get into more exposition of my
own ideas here is that even the posts at my websites, in which I can go
on as long as I like, and among which my posts of recent years seem to
me much better written than those of the earlier years, turn out to be
difficult for others to understand, even when they are disposed to
fourfold thinking, as I lament in a comment at somebody else's blog
https://equivalentexchange.wordpress.com/2015/12/29/the-four-hats-of-creativity/#comment-33596
.
Best, Ben
*On 5/23/2016 12:03 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:*
Ben, list,
"Recognizant" is a good term, I think. Recognizant and interpretant,
like source and destination too, describe a continuity, which is a
trait of thirdness. Maybe another example of fourism is Talcott
Parsons AGIL- scheme, the four necessities of an acting system, esp. a
social one: adaption, goal attainment, integration and latency.
Best,
Helmut
*23. Mai 2016 um 03:08 Uhr
"Benjamin Udell"*
Helmut, list,
My fours don't align with Peirce's four methods of inquiry. In
https://tetrast2.blogspot.com/2013/04/methods-of-learning.html ,
you'll find Peirce's three inferior methods scattered around a large
table at the post's end. Peirce's fourth method, the scientific
method, is also there, more or less, as "cognitive assessment and
testing." The post as a whole is about four good methods of learning.
In semiotics, based on the idea that sign and interpretant do not
convey experience with their object, I add a fourth stage, a
'recognizant', that does just that. There's a parallel with
information theory's scenario of source, encoding, decoding, destination.
Best, Ben
*On 5/22/2016 4:04 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:*
Ben, list,
Your fourism I find interesting, and it reminds me of Peirces four
methods of fixating belief. Would that be justified, and, to loosely
do the following connections: Will with tenacity, ability with
authority, affectivity with a-priori, and cognition with the
scientific method?
Now, only by the way, because I do not know whether the fourism I
will mention now has to do with your fourism: In semiotics, I
sometimes think, you might find a sort of fourism as well: Apart
from the object and the representamen, there are perhaps two things
that both would apply to the Peircean thirdness: reason (cause), and
result. Result may be the same as interpretant. The reason (to
connect representamen with object) mostly lies in the person or
entity of the interpreter, I guess. This interpreting system or
person, though, is not regarded for necessary to look at it, I
guess, by Peirce. But if it would, would it be a fourism, or remain
triadism, because reason and result both are thirdness? I dont know.
Best,
Helmut
-----------------------------
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 .
