No Jon, I am not claiming a thing about Peirce's writings and don't try to 
introduce a red herring.
I'm pointing out that your insistence that YOUR interpretations of Peirce are 
THE correct ones is an untenable position. 

I've already explained my disagreement with your view that, for example, a 
qualisign is 'in the world of representations', i.e., of Thirdness. A qualisign 
is a triad in only the mode of Firstness.

There is no such thing as a 'quality' in itself. What do you think such a thing 
is?  Again - there is no such thing as a 'quality'. There are triads that 
function as qualities- the Qualisign. That is - nothing functions except within 
a triad. You don't accept this. Furthermore, you seem to limit semiosis 
to...I'm not sure to what...But I don't think you include the physico-chemical 
and biological realms as I do - and I'm sure you know that Peirce included 
those realms as well.

Edwina
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
  To: Edwina Taborsky 
  Cc: Peirce-L 
  Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 8:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology


  Edwina, List:


    ET:  When you say that some of Peirce's positions are perfectly clear and 
not reasonably disputable - again, this is your opinion.


  Are you claiming here that none of Peirce's positions are perfectly clear and 
not reasonably disputable--i.e., that all of his positions are at least 
somewhat murky, and thus open for debate?  Is there anything that you would 
confidently assert to be Peirce's position, without qualifying it as merely 
your interpretation or opinion?


    ET:   I happen to disagree with your view of Peirce's view on 'god- as 
'creator of the three universes.


  My view is that in Peirce's belief, God as Ens necessarium is Really creator 
of all three Universes of Experience.  Peirce wrote, in CP 6.452, "The word 
'God' ... is the definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my 
belief Really creator of all three Universes of Experience."  What is the basis 
for your disagreement with me about Peirce's view on this--i.e., what 
meaningful difference do you see between my statement of it and his own?


    ET:  I completely disagree with you on the above.


  My view is that Peirce's view is that all signs are genuine triads, and thus 
must be in the universe of representations.  Peirce wrote, in CP 1.480, "a 
triad if genuine cannot be in the world of quality nor in that of fact," which 
means that it can only be "in the universe of representations."  What is the 
basis for your disagreement with me about Peirce's view on this--i.e., what 
meaningful difference do you see between my statement of it and his own?


    ET:  A quality IS a qualisign! ... There is no such thing as a 'quality' in 
itself.


  Are you saying that all qualities are also qualisigns--i.e., tthat here is no 
distinction between the two?  If so, do you believe that this was Peirce's 
view, as well?  If so, based on what specific passages in his writings?


  Thanks,


  Jon


  On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 5:20 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

    1) Jon - When you say that some of Peirce's positions are perfectly clear 
and not reasonably disputable - again, this is your opinion. I happen to 
disagree with your view of Peirce's view on 'god- as 'creator of the three 
universes. You have your opinion - and again, I think it is incorrect for you 
to declare that you 'read' Peirce 'exactly correctly'. 

    2) Now - when you write:
    "My example was a qualisign, which as a quality (as well as an icon and 
rheme) is entirely in the mode of Firstness, but as a sign--at least, according 
to Peirce in CP 1.480--can only belong to the third Universe."

    I completely disagree with you on the above. The whole triad - a rhematic 
iconic qualisign - is entirely in the mode of Firstness and is a sign. And does 
NOT belong to the third Universe. There is no such thing as a single relation 
i.e.,the Representamen-Object,  existing on its own. The triad of all three 
relations is irreducible. O-R; R-R; R-I.  None of these exist on their own but 
within the triad. A Qualisign is a quality, a feeling - and is not in the 
'third Universe'.

    A quality IS a qualisign! There is no such thing as something operating 
outside of the triad. There is no such thing as a 'quality' in itself. 
    The definition of a sign is its triadic set of Relations: That between the 
Representamen and the Object; that of the Representamen in itself; that between 
the Representamen and the Interpretant. The Representamen acts as mediation - 
and can be in a mode of Firstness.  An Interpretant is not an Object but is an 
'output' interpretation linked by the Representamen to the stimuli of the 
Object. 

    And again - of the ten classes of SIGNS, four of them do NOT have their 
Representamen operating in a mode of Thirdness. That includes the genuine sign 
of a rhematic iconic qualisign; and the Dicent Indexical Sinsign...
    And yet - these are legitimate SIGNS.  They have no Thirdness in them at 
all.
    See 2.227 and on.

    Again, the triad is basic to semiosis; it does not necessarily require 
Thirdness in its component [again, see the ten classes 2.227..] and ..there is 
no such thing as a 'quality' or indeed anything, functioning outside of the 
semiosic triad.

    Edwina
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
      To: Edwina Taborsky 
      Cc: Peirce-L 
      Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 5:42 PM
      Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology


      Edwina, List: 


        ET:  We each read him a different way and I don't think that you have 
the right to self-define yourself as someone who is 'one-with-Peirce'.


      Those are your words, not mine; I have never claimed to be "one with 
Peirce."  What I have claimed is that some of Peirce's positions are perfectly 
clear and not reasonably disputable, whether I happen to agree with him or not. 
 That he believed in the Reality of God as Ens necessarium, Creator of all 
three Universes of Experience, is one of those--and I do happen to agree with 
him about that.  At the same time, this is not to say that his entire "view of 
Mind and creation" was identical to my own; I am quite certain that it was not.


        ET:  I think that many others have to read Peirce - and - your and my 
comments - and make up their minds as to how 'accurately' we interpret him.


      On this, we are in complete agreement.


        ET:  I read 6.455 differently than you do - I don't see that eg the 
mathematical reasoning is in a categorical mode of Firstness. It IS pure 
ideational - which would be, in the ten classes, a pure Argument [symbolic 
legisign argment O-R-I]; that is - ENTIRELY IN THIRDNESS.


      Again, this conflates the mode of a sign with the Universe of Experience 
to which it belongs, although I am not even sure that all mathematical 
reasoning should be assigned to the Universe of Ideas.  My example was a 
qualisign, which as a quality (as well as an icon and rheme) is entirely in the 
mode of Firstness, but as a sign--at least, according to Peirce in CP 
1.480--can only belong to the third Universe.


        ET:  I don't see that a qualisign - one entirely in a mode of Firstness 
- has any 'active power to establish connections between different objects' and 
therefore, I simply don't see how you can declare that it belongs to 
'Thirdness'.


      If something does not have "active power to establish connections between 
different objects," then it is not a sign at all--in this case, it is merely a 
quality, rather than a qualisign.  The very definition of what it means to be a 
sign is that it is able to connect different objects--specifically, an object 
with an interpretant.


        ET:  With regard to your reading of 1.480- Peirce refers to THREE kinds 
of 'genuine triads'.


      Yes, he does; but he also goes on to say that "a triad if genuine cannot 
be in the world of quality nor in that of fact," which means that all three 
kinds of genuine triads can only be "in the universe of representations."  
Again, this is not about the mode of the sign, which can be in any of the three 
categories, but about the Universe of Experience where it belongs.  Peirce then 
adds, "Indeed, representation necessarily involves a genuine triad.  For it 
involves a sign, or representamen, of some kind, outward or inward, mediating 
between an object and an interpreting thought.  Now this is neither a matter of 
fact, since thought is general, nor is it a matter of law, since thought is 
living."  Here we see that all representation--i.e., all sign-action, all 
semeiosis--necessarily involves a genuine triad, which can only be in the third 
Universe precisely because it mediates between an object and interpretant.  We 
also see that "thought is general" and "thought is living," which is another 
way of saying that thought is Thirdness--which makes sense, since all thought 
is in signs.


      Regards,


      Jon


      On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> 
wrote:

        Jon- I don't think you can move into saying 'If I [Jon] am wrong 
inthis, then Peirce was wrong]. We remain, all of us, readers of Peirce - and 
thus - interpreters. We each read him a different way and I don't think that 
you have the right to self-define yourself as someone who is 'one-with-Peirce'. 
I think that many others have to read Peirce - and - your and my comments - and 
make up their minds as to how 'accurately' we interpret him. 

        For example - I consider that EVERYTHING is semiosic - whereas, I'm not 
sure what meaning you assign to the word. For me - all actions within the 
physico-chemical, biological and socioconceptual world are semiosic - and don't 
need human agency to be such. Again, 'matter is effete mind'.

        I read 6.455 differently than you do - I don't see that eg the 
mathematical reasoning is in a categorical mode of Firstness. It IS pure 
ideational - which would be, in the ten classes, a pure Argument [symbolic 
legisign argment O-R-I]; that is - ENTIRELY IN THIRDNESS.

         So, i don't equate the three universes to match the three categories. 
The quotation you provide "I said that a thoroughly genuine triad in a mode of 
Firstness (i.e., a qualisign) belongs to the third Universe of Experience, as 
something "whose being consists in active power to establish connections 
between different objects" (CP 6.455). .....I consider that this quote refers 
to Thirdness. And therefore - I don't see that a qualisign - one entirely in a 
mode of Firstness - has any 'active power to establish connections between 
different objects' and therefore, I simply don't see how you can declare that 
it belongs to 'Thirdness'.

        With regard to your reading of 1.480- Peirce refers to THREE kinds of 
'genuine triads'. I read a genuine triad as operational in A quality and in A 
fact. So- 1-1-1, a qualisign, is a triad in a total mode of Firstness; it is a 
'feeling of redness' but it is NOT the same as a thoroughly genuine triad' 
which involves generality or Thirdness. A 2-2-2 or Dicent Sinsign is a triad in 
a total mode of Secondness, eg, a weathervane - but it is not the same as a 
thoroughly genuine triad which involves generality or Thirdness. So,  again, a 
triad in a mode of Firstness does not, in my readings of Peirce, belong in 'the 
Third universe'; there is no generality. Firstness has no capacity to 'make 
connections', to mediate, to connect. That is the nature of Firstness - its 
isolate vividness.
        So- we disagree in our readings. 

        As for your interpretation of God and Peirce - I maintain that it 
remains your interpretation and that Peirce's view of Mind and creation  - is 
quite different from yours.

        Edwina
          ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
          To: Edwina Taborsky 
          Cc: Peirce-L 
          Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 4:13 PM
          Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology


          Edwina, List: 


          I try to be careful about only attributing to Peirce, rather than 
myself, those things that strike me as incontrovertibly clear in his 
writings--things that the vast majority of Peirce scholars recognize to be HIS 
views, as expressed in those writings.  I do not subscribe to the approach that 
all interpretations are equally valid; while there can certainly be legitimate 
differences, there are also objectively incorrect readings, assuming (as Gary 
F. once put it) that Peirce said what he meant and meant what he said.  Of 
course, I am (very) fallible, so I may (and probably do) overreach in some 
cases.  I even conceded in my last post, "We might quibble about these 
particular assignments of the labels, which are just off the top of my head."  
The overall point remains--Peirce did not limit the categories to semeiosis, as 
you apparently do.  If you are right to do so, then not only am I wrong about 
this, but Peirce was also wrong about it.


          There seems to be a particular terminological difficulty with the 
word "mode."  I did not say "that a pure or genuine triad in a mode of 
Firstness [O-R-I all in a mode of Firstness] belongs in a mode of 
representation," I said that a thoroughly genuine triad in a mode of Firstness 
(i.e., a qualisign) belongs to the third Universe of Experience, as something 
"whose being consists in active power to establish connections between 
different objects" (CP 6.455).  In some contexts, the categories do correspond 
to modes, such as possible/actual/habitual; but not always.  In any case, what 
I said is perfectly consistent with what Peirce wrote in CP 1.480 (not CP 
1.515, as I indicated in my response to Jeff)--"a triad if genuine cannot be in 
the world of quality nor in that of fact ... But a thoroughly genuine triad is 
separated entirely from those worlds and exists in the universe of 
representations."  So I am not the only one claiming that "it belongs primarily 
to the third Universe"--Peirce did, as well.  If I am wrong about this, then 
Peirce was also wrong about it.


          Finally, there is nothing to debate with respect to whether Peirce 
believed in the Reality of God as Ens necessarium and Creator of all three 
Universes of Experience--he says so plainly in CP 6.452.  If I am wrong about 
this, then Peirce was also wrong about it.


          Regards,


          Jon 


          On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> 
wrote:

            Jon, you wrote:

             "For Peirce, the categories do not only function within the O-R-I 
triad--for one thing, they are everywhere in his architectonic arrangement of 
the sciences!"

            PLEASE - do not write as if you alone are the sole interpreter of 
Peirce. Therefore, please write something like: ' In my [Jon Alan Schmidt] 
interpretation, the categories of Peirce do not only function within the O-R-I 
triad...etc etc.

            Do you see the difference? I am always careful to make it clear 
that what I write is MY interpretation of Peirce. I do not write as if I had 
the direct or correct view of  Peirce.

            Now - to your points - 

            1) With regard to genuine - I don't see that a  pure or genuine 
triad in a mode of Firstness [O-R-I all in a mode of Firstness] belongs in a 
mode of representation - and representation suggests Thirdness or the use of 
some symbolic mediation. I simply don't see how you can claim that "it belongs 
primarily to the Third Universe' [by which I am assuming that you mean to 
Thirdness]??

            Jeff has provided a quote: "For while a triad if genuine cannot be 
in the world of quality nor in that of fact, yet it may be a mere law, or 
regularity, of quality or of fact." 1.515***ET - I cannot find this quote at 
1.515.

            However ,Peirce does write that 'Secondness is an essential part of 
Thirdness...and Firstness is an essential element of both Secondness and 
Thirdness' 1.530 - which is why I consider that the three categories are a 
complex embedded function.

            2) Therefore I disagree with your aligning various sciences with 
the categories. I don't think that his differentiation of the various sciences 
etc has any real relationship to the categories. The categories, as I read 
Peirce, refer to the phaneron- "the collective total of all that is in any way 
or in any sense present to the mind quite regardless of whether it corresponds 
to any real thing or not" 1.284

            Jon, you wrote: "For sciences of discovery, mathematics as 
Firstness, philosophy as Secondness, and special sciences as Thirdness; "

            I don't see this. Peirce certainly classified the various fields of 
studies - but not within the categories. Mathematics, which refers to 'feelings 
and quality'? Philosophy referring to actual facts?

            But he certainly classified fields of study into 'threes'. - and 
one can see that some of the descriptions of the modal categories can be 
loosely applied  - i.e., abduction does indeed have an element of 'feeling, 
quality, freedom'; and induction does have an element of actual fact; and 
deduction does have an element of necessity. But I think this is a loose 
description for all three are, after all, aspects of reasoning [Thirdness]. 

            3) I don't see that Peirce accepted a pre-existent creator. 
            "Out of the womb of indeterminacy, we must say that there would 
have come something, by the principle of Firstness, which we may call a flash. 
Then by the principle of habit there would have been a second flash. Thought 
time would not yet have been, this second flash was in some sense after the 
first, because resulting from it" 1.412. 

            Now - this self-organized complexity didn't need a prior 'ens 
necessarium'. I am aware, Jon, of your view of genesis and god, since you have 
provided your supportive quotations from the Bible - which sees god as an 
agential creator - but - I don't see that this Agential Force is accepted by 
Peirce. Peirce sees 'Mind' as the agential force - an ongoing, evolving, open 
force - and a part of matter - i.e., not separate from matter- and therefore 
not prior to time or matter. [see his discussion in the Reality of God - 6.489 
....

            Edwina
              ----- Original Message ----- 
              From: Jon Alan Schmidt 
              To: Edwina Taborsky 
              Cc: Jeffrey Brian Downard ; Peirce-L 
              Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 2:20 PM
              Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology


              Edwina, List: 


                ET:  Your post outlines the three 'pure' triads where the 
Relations between the Object-Representamen-Interpretant are all of one mode; 
all in the mode of Firstness or Secondness or Thirdness.


              I do not believe that Jeff's post was referring to the O-R-I 
relations specifically, but rather to triadic relations in general, since that 
is what Peirce discussed in the quoted paper.  In other words, O-R-I is not the 
only kind of triad, even though it is probably the paradigmatic example of a 
triad.


              In any case, Peirce stated quite clearly that all genuine triads 
belong to the world of representation, and not to the world of quality or the 
world of fact.  These are undoubtedly what he later called the three Universes 
of Experience--quality corresponds to Ideas, fact to Brute Actuality, and 
representation to Signs.  However, this is not to say that all signs are in the 
mode of Thirdness; i.e., Necessitants.  Even a qualisign, which must be iconic 
and rhematic in its relations to its object and interpretant, and thus is 
classified entirely in the mode of Firstness, belongs primarily to the third 
Universe--its "being consists in active power to establish connections between 
different objects."  However, specifically as a qualisign--a quality that is a 
sign--it also, in some sense, belongs to the first Universe.  Likewise, a 
sinsign belongs to both the third Universe as a sign and the second Universe as 
an existent.  I am still thinking through how all of this works, including how 
the R-O and R-I relations fit into the picture, so I would welcome input from 
others on it.


                ET:  As such the categories only function within the triad - 
the O-R-I triad.


              Perhaps this is our fundamental disagreement, at least when it 
comes to this subject.  For Peirce, the categories do not only function within 
the O-R-I triad--for one thing, they are everywhere in his architectonic 
arrangement of the sciences!  For sciences of discovery, mathematics as 
Firstness, philosophy as Secondness, and special sciences as Thirdness; for 
philosophy, phenomenology (phaneroscopy) as Firstness, normative sciences as 
Secondness, and metaphysics as Thirdness; for normative sciences, esthetics as 
Firstness, ethics as Secondness, logic (semeiotic) as Thirdness.  Within 
mathematics, the categories manifest as monads, dyads, and triads; within 
phaneroscopy, as quality, reaction, and representation; within metaphysics, as 
possibility, actuality, and necessity (habituality); within logic, as 
speculative grammar, critic, and methodeutic.  We might quibble about these 
particular assignments of the labels, which are just off the top of my head, 
but the point is that restricting the categories to semeiosis is decidedly 
contrary to Peirce's own approach.


                ET:  I don't see either that the 'pure or genuine Thirdness' - 
the Symbolic Legisign Argument [O-R-I] can be an 'ens necessarium' because I 
consider that our universe requires both Firstness and Secondness and I 
therefore reject such a pre-existent 'Platonic creator of all three modes or 
universes'.


              No one is suggesting that "pure or genuine Thirdness" is 
identical to an Argument; this thread concerns metaphysics in general, and 
cosmology in particular, rather than semeiotic.  Even if "our universe [now] 
requires both Firstness and Secondness," this does not entail that they were 
also required "before" our actual universe came into being.  While you "reject 
such a pre-existent 'Platonic creator of all three modes or universes," Peirce 
quite explicitly believed in just such a Creator, and I honestly do not see how 
any legitimate reading of "A Neglected Argument" can deny this.


                CSP:  The word "God," so "capitalized" (as we Americans say), 
is the definable proper name, signifying Ens necessarium; in my belief Really 
creator of all three Universes of Experience. (CP 6.452)


              Regards,


              Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
              Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
              www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt


              On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Edwina Taborsky 
<tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:

                Jeffrey, list: Your post outlines the three 'pure' triads where 
the Relations between the Object-Representamen-Interpretant are all of one 
mode; all in the mode of Firstness or Secondness or Thirdness. These are only 
three of the ten - and the function of the non-genuine or degenerate modes is, 
in my view, to provide the capacity for evolution, adaptation and change. That 
is, Firstness linked to Secondness and Thirdness, as in the vital, vital triad 
of the Rhematic Indexical Legisign - introduces novelty to actuality to habit. 
That's quite something. 

                My point is that the modal categories have no 'per se' reality 
[Jon considers that both Firstness and Thirdness have such a reality] but are 
modes of organization and experience of matter/concepts within ongoing events, 
i.e, 'matter is effete Mind'. As such the categories only function within the 
triad - the O-R-I triad.

                I don't see either that the 'pure or genuine Thirdness' - the 
Symbolic Legisign Argument [O-R-I] can be an 'ens necessarium' because I 
consider that our universe requires both Firstness and Secondness and I 
therefore reject such a pre-existent 'Platonic creator of all three modes or 
universes'.  That is - I'm aware that Jon bases his reading of Peirce also 
within his belief in Genesis and God - but I can't see this same view within 
the writings of Peirce.

                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 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 .




-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to