Dear Kirsti,
As in our past exchanges I value your response and its tone of voice.
In discussions I always try to be short as possible. Maybe this time
to my detriment. I do thank you for te opportunity you offer to try to
become more clear.
I will add some words between the lines.
K:
Dear Auke & al.
It seems to me that you are on the right tract, but in a way CSP did
not share. And going along a tract, wich leads nowhere.
--
AvB: If your criticism holds, I agree.
K:
Although the main interest of CSP lied in science, his starting point
was "babes and suclings", (just google this) As have been mine, even
before I had any knowledge whatsoever of Peirce.
This is were my work, since 1970's comes in. In English their is not
much to rely on. See, however, my astract for Applying Peirde
conference, at Helsinki 2007. Available in internet.I have provided
Eugene Halton with the handout in the conference. Which he has quoted
several times. Lately in a book chapter of his.
The problem with your approach, as with almost all others, lies in
taking ADULTS as the starting point. And then taking science as the
the more restricted starting point. - No one, however is bourn as *a
Fichtean philosopher* , as Marx end Engels pointed out, nor as an
adult, nor as a scientist.
Firstness comes first. Both in real life, in metaphysics and in
semiotics. - C.S Peirce did not cherish this händicap.
--
AvB: I do not think here we disagree, at least on this level of detail
of discussing matters. His animal examples show that he even didn’t
confine to childhood, but extended the thought to an evolutionary
scale. With his distinction between a logica utens and a logica docens
and his architectonic of sciences, each of the cenoscopic sciences
preceding the special sciences and being devoted to:
About positive phenomena in general, such as are available to every
person at every waking moment, and not about special classes of
phenomena. Does not resort to special experiences or experiments in
order to settle theoretical questions.
What I did intend to state is that it is when we look at a sign that
inscribes itself, the question of the connection between the two
divisions of interpretants comes into clear sight. For, I would add
now, it is then that we must ask for the connection between both
trichotomies of interpretants.
If Peirce wouldn't have been of the opinion that nothing is lost if we
don't pay attention to the
apprehension of the sign as an object, cf 8.2.1, he, as a consequence,
probably
could have made the same arrangement as Van Driel, which is the
arrangement I propose.
K:
Sheets of assertion serve as ground (in the more general sense) only
within teh system of existential graphs. Which is the only mode of
graphs CSP comleted to his satifaction.
It does not, however, follow that he consided them to be the key, the
part and parcel of his diagrammatic method.
It is just the easest to grasp for in cultural cnditions where
nominalistic ways of thought retain the upper händ.
--
AvB: agreed. I did not argue that. We always must keep the distinction
between an utens and a docens in mind. The existential graphs are part
of the docens, as an (iconic) reflection on the utens of reasoning. De
Tienne's sheets of description (phenomenology), if possible to shape
diagrammatical, will be different. As is our (besides me, Sarbo and
Farkas) diagrammatic KiF-proposal for semiotics. To my great
surprise, and thanks to the late Irving Anellis, Peirce anticipated
our proposal with his x-box arrangement of the 16 Boolean relations,
arranged from FFFF to TTTT . This passage from primordial soup to a
response only makes sense if it is conceived as a process, the
response mediating state and effect. The process in between being
triadic in itself. But, of course, my "self" image may be at fault.
K:
Eugene Halton has written an excellent paper on Peirce and the
distorted view Morris spread around early on. The article titled "
Situation, Structure and ... * I also find valid´, even excellent.
--
AvB: I indicated some of Morris' distortions short in my "The semiotic
Framework: Peirce and Stamper". Many early bird information scientists
were introduced to Peircean semiotics through Morris, as Ronald
Stamper and his group was. I experience my talks with them as an
exchange between fundamental research and application. In use of
technical terminology we may differ, in way of looking, the
similarities prevail. Also in mastery of semiotics a subdivision
between docens and utens can be made. The utens pointing the way for
the docens or at least delivering content.
K:
I personally came across the dominance of Secondness by makind a
thorough inspection on Umberto Eco and his references to Collected
Papers in his book Theory of Semiotics. I was to make a selection for
a study cirle on CSP. Quite a reluctant one, for that matter. It was
late 1970's.
It was only later that I realized how narrow and misleading was Eco's
presentation. - It still seems to have the upper hand. In one form or
another.
Existential graphs are all about Secondness. The other parts never got
completed by CSP. Not even outlined, at leasta in the selections so
far published.
---
AvB: For me it is more important that the existential graphs have an
alpha, a beta and a gamma part, and that semiotics has a small
classification with ten sign types, a middle with 28 and a Welby
classification with 66 sign types. Of which Bernard Morand has argued
that the small classification is part and parcel of the extended.
Which suggests an alpha, beta and gamma part of semiotics. An idea
that makes sense to me if I contemplate: 1. The sheet as a sign with a
description of its triadically arranged sign aspects in a dependency
structure. 2. The sheet as a sign that gets inscribed by another sign
and the process that leads to a response (knowledge). And 3. The sign
interacting with another sign capable of interpretation in
communication.
K:
All serious, devoted Peirceans know that triadicity forms the key to
all Peircean thought. No taking Secondness as the one and only.
--
AvB: For me it is the interplay of all. After Aristotle, in the order
of things firstness is first, in the order of knowledge secondness is
first. I would add, in the order of understanding thirdness is first,
in that it is the triadically structured description of the process of
dyadically related and interacting states and events, that must
account for the response. Our KiF-model is a proposal. The relation
between the two divisions of interpretants was key for me. The
approach of Short and Stamper were the trigger.
K:
With you, Auke, I have had some rewarding exchange of communication
early on, after I joined the List.
This is why I take this time to comment your post. - You do as you
wish.
- I'll do the same after reading your response. If so happens that
you'll write one.
--
AvB
I do thank you for your responses and wish you all the best!
Auke van Breemen
My very best wishes to you!
Kirsti Määttänen
Auke van Breemen kirjoitti 20.10.2016 13:11:
Jon,
Thanks for your questions. Some short answers below.
With regard to sheets I suggest to read for
a. Sheets of assertion:
Zeman, J. (1977). Peirce's Theory of Signs. In T. A. Seboek (Ed.), A
Perfusion
of Signs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
b. Descriptive sheets
De Tienne:
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/detienne/isphanscie
nce.pdf
[1]
c. Semiotic sheet, for a first orientation my 2007 paper will do.
_The relevance of the concept semiotic sheet for the current
discussion._
A signs gives rise to its interpretant sign. Lets picture this as
follows:
Sign -proces of interpretation- interpretant/sign -proces of
interpretation- interpretant/sign – I/S – I/S, etc.
Short is interested in sign types and focusses on the
interpretant/sign. My interest is in the intermediate processes
between two signs. In order to get a run of an interpretation process
an interpreting system (of whatever nature) must be assumed. Lets
reserve the term ‘semiotic sheet’ for this interpreting system.
This interpreting system is a sign itself, cf Peirce’s dictum ‘Man is
a sign’. So, interpretation starts when a sign inscribes itself in an
interpreting sign or semiotic sheet.
(1) Looked at as a first, in itself, we have the radical subjectivist
(Stamper) or phenomenological view (architectonic of sciences).
(2) Looked at as a second, as related to a sign that inscribes itself,
we have the actualist (Stamper) or semiotic view, (architectonic of
sciences). But only to the extend that an interpreting system
interprets a sign (critic).
(3) Looked at as a thirdness, we have the rhetorical part of
semiotics. Stamper, being in his 80ies, started back then from Morris
and didn’t get a clear view on this communicative view on the matter.
Here we are concerned with two sheets conversing with each other (a,b
-> goal of a and b,a -> goal of b).
The connection between the two trichotomies of interpretants
(emotional, energetic and logical; fruit of phenomenological or
radical subjectivist considerations) and iimmediate, dynamical and
normal interpretants; fruit of semiotics proper) can be established in
2. It sets of with
Kant gives the erroneous view that ideas are presented separated and
then thought together
by the mind. This is his doctrine that a mental synthesis precedes
every analysis.
What really happens is that something is presented which in itself has
no parts, but which
nevertheless is analyzed by the mind, that is to say, its having parts
consists in this that the
mind afterward recognizes those parts in it. Those partial ideas are
really not in the first
idea, in itself, though they are separated out from it. It is a case
of destructive distillation.
W6:449, CP 1.384
So, interpretation sets of with a collection of qualia. In
phaneroscopy it is called the phaneren, in semiotics it is termed the
emotional interpretant:
The first proper significate effect of a sign is a feeling produced by
it
[. . . ]. It [a tune; AvB] conveys, and is intended to convey, the
composer's
musical ideas; but these usually consist merely in a series of
feelings (CP
5.475).
From this further interpretants may evolve. First the energetive
interpretants (mental, physical), next the logical (immediate,
dynamical and normal).
In short: The semiotic sheet is needed if we want to get a hold on the
process of interpretation.
Best, Auke
VAN: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]]
VERZONDEN: woensdag 19 oktober 2016 21:18
AAN: Auke van Breemen <[email protected]>
CC: [email protected]
ONDERWERP: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's
Cosmology)
Auke, List:
AB: As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no
conclusions.
Yes, Peirce was right to call himself "a pioneer, or rather a
backwoodsman, in the work of clearing and opening up what I call
semiotic" (CP 5.488; 1907).
AB: I in particular disagree with your: "However, as I have suggested
previously, the three Interpretants themselves seem to be more
properly characterized as possible (Immediate), actual (Dynamic), and
habitual (Final), with each divided into feeling/action/thought."
It is a working hypothesis, at best. I am certainly open to being
convinced otherwise.
AB: It disregards the possibility of the sheet of description (De
Tienne) and a sheet of semiosis (Breemen/Sarbo) as related to each
other according to the mature division of the sciences.
I am not too familiar with these concepts and would like to learn more
about them, so I will review your 2007 paper, which I apparently
downloaded a while ago. Would you mind elaborating their specific
relevance to the current discussion, and perhaps suggest some
additional reading that I could do?
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Auke van Breemen
<[email protected]> wrote:
Jon,
As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no
conclusions. The EP only gives a fragment of the groping. As much of
his other writings gives a lot more fragments. It may be that only
not being able to regard the blackboard (or in its mundane character
the sheets of Assertion, description or semiotics as a sign) that
prevented him from finishing the system. All ingredients are present.
I in particular disagree with your:
." However, as I have suggested previously, the three Interpretants
_themselves _seem to be more properly characterized as possible
(Immediate), actual (Dynamic), and habitual (Final), with each
divided into feeling/action/thought.
--
This is the Short arrangement of both trichotomies of interpretants.
It disregards the possibility of the sheet of description (De
Tienne) and a sheet of semiosis (Breemen/Sarbo) as related to each
other according to the mature division of the sciences. From a sign
type perspective Shorts approach makes sense: Each sign has an
element of feeling of action and of thought, but from a processual
approach it is better to apply Ockham’s razor in order to find the
system behind processes of interpretation. Peirce paved the way for
that by his notion of involvement. The logical note books are key, in
combination with Shorts (or Stampers implied) criticism of Peirce’s
focus on scientific progress in developing a theory of
interpretation. (Cf personal, scientific and practical needs that
govern comunication).
Best, Auke van Breemen
-------------------------
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com [4]
Versie: 2016.0.7859 / Virusdatabase: 4664/13235 - datum van uitgifte:
10/18/16
Links:
------
[1]
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/detienne/isphanscie
nce.pdf [2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://www.avg.com
-----
Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht.
Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com
Versie: 2016.0.7859 / Virusdatabase: 4664/13258 - datum van uitgifte:
10/23/16
