Clark, list - see my comments below
----- Original Message -----
From: CLARK GOBLE
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2016 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dynamic/Immediate Object and Determination/Causation
On Aug 25, 2016, at 6:45 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote:
1) Continuity is an integral component of 'community'. I've never heard of
a 'finite community, at least in the natural world. The artificial world that
includes 'identity politics' and their 'finite communities' is a different
story!
CLARK:Typically in regular speech community is just a finite number of people
with shared views. All practical communities where we use the term are finite.
i.e. the set of living Americans, the scientific community, etc. I think that’s
why it gets emphasized.
EDWINA: I understand your point but I'll have a problem with the
identification of 'community' only in the present tense. The very nature of
Thirdness is its focus on the future existentiality of the 'type' - a type
developed within the history of both Firstness and Secondness. I don't confine
semiosis to the human realm but include the physico-chemical and biological
realms. Therefore, I use the term of 'community' to refer to its ability not
only to exist within individual articulations but to 'be continuous in the
future'.
2) I disagree with a limited definition of 'sign' [i.e., that it is only in
a categorical mode of Thirdness]. I consider the Sign [capital S] to be a
triadic set of Relations - and each of these can can be in ANY categorical
mode. Agreed, that the generals that define Realism, develop only as the
categorical mode of Thirdness but I think that the other two modes of Firstness
and Secondness are absolutely vital and necessary modes in that development.
CLARK: I don’t disagree with any of that although I might quibble with the
relation bit - but I don’t want to relitigate that discussion as it’s largely
beside the point.
EDWINA: I don't think that the focus on the Relations and the three
Categories is 'beside the point' since I consider that some posts on this list
veer towards linear determinism and such an action is the opposite of the
complexity that is Peircean semiosis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
