Edwina, List: Which of these three bullets do you believe is NOT an accurate statement of Peirce's view? Note the lowercase "s" in "sign."
- All thought takes place by means of signs. - Every sign represents an object to an interpretant. - Representation is (only) Thirdness. As for interpretants, I was referring to the immediate, dynamic, and final interpretants in the mode of Thirdness--a range of possible thoughts, an occurrence of an actual thought, and a cultivated habit of thought, respectively. These interpretants are *not *thoughts in the other two modes--in the mode of Firstness, they are feelings; in the mode of Secondness, they are actions. Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:43 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon- you and I have basic disagreements on our interpretations of Peirce. > I won't get into a discussion with you if you - rather than acknowledging > our disagreements - insist that your view and your interpretation is the > only valid one - an action which you constantly do insist on. After all, > that is no longer a discussion but merely your preaching. I'm not > interested in being 'preached at'. > > There is, as I said before, a difference between the singular > sign/representamen which acts as mediation and the triadic *Sign.* The > latter includes all three Relations; that between the Representamen-Object; > the Representamen in itself; and that between the Representamen- > Interpretant. The triad is the Sign, it is a semiosic process and is an > action of Mind. All three categories can be expressed in this triad - and > their expression has nothing to do with our human thinking *about* > Firstness or Secondness. > > Thought, as I read Peirce, is a triadic or semiosic process, and can't be > reduced to only one modal category of Thirdness. Thirdness is the category > of developing *habits of form, or commonalities or generalization.* This > is done BY THOUGHT but thought cannot be, in my view, reduced to merely > habits-of-form -so I reject defining thought as Thirdness. This thought is > a process that requires that full semiosic triad. Both the generation of > these habits and the resultant further triad....requires all three > categories to develop both. > > Therefore, I disagree with your interpretation of Peirce that 'all thought > is only Thirdness'. Again, I see Thirdness as the habits-of-form, the > development of generalities - but, again, these habits are 'alive'' they > emerge within the active-actions of the other two modal categories. > Therefore, Mind and its thought-processes, as I read Peirce, requires ALL > three categories. > > And, as well, I'm uncertain of your comment, where you seem to suggest > that Interpretants must be in the mode of Thirdness. Since I'm sure you > know there is only one of the ten classes where the Interpretant is in a > mode of Thirdness - then, I'm not sure of your meaning. > > Now- if you are going to insist that your view alone is The Right View of > Peirce - and my view is a deranged, degenerate personal one - may I suggest > that we end this exchange right now. I'll engage in a debate that > acknowledges that we may each have a very different perspective on Peirce - > but I won't get into a situation where you Inform Me that you alone have > The Right View. > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
