BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon - I will say this only once; I won't get into a debate with you.
1) I use Peirce's term of 'representamen' rather than 'sign' to
acknowledge the unique role in the triad; that mediative
function/action in the triadic set - and to differentiate it from the
WHOLE Sign, the triad. As I've often said, none of the parts of this
triad exist 'per se' on their own. They are not each 'subjects' in
their own right and I disagree that each is 'a constituent in their
own universe'. I don't consider that the three modal categories are
'universes'.
You do not differentiate this mediative process; indeed, you rarely
refer to it as a vital action. Indeed, all you seem to focus on is
NAMING the different parts of the Sign. But do you examine the
dynamic PROCESS that is going on?
I consider that the Sign as a whole is a triadic FUNCTION. Actions
are going on in that triad! It's not a static or mechanical process!
2) There is nothing wrong with using different terms. With regard to
'habits of formation' - what the heck do you think those 'habits' are
doing? Do you deny that there are 'habits'? I'm sure you don't, as
Peirce uses the term! But to what purpose is that habit? You ignore
this. What's going on in the world that is due to habit-taking? Why
don't you explore this? Do you think that an atom has no continuity
of type? That this continuity of type doesn't provide it with a
continuity of behaviour? That this continuity of type doesn't
differentiate it from another atom? WHY do habits exist? You don't
examine this.
As Peirce notes, 1.414, a 'bundle of habits' is a 'thing' or a
substance. That seems pretty clear to me that this 'bundle of habits
FORMS the thing.
And, as he notes [1.22] "The embryonic being for Aristotle was the
being he called matter, which is alike in all things, and which in
the course of its development took on form. Form is an element having
a different mode of being....My view is that there are three modes of
being" 1.22. Here Peirce is referring to the FORM that matter takes
on, i.e., within the three categorical modes of Firstness, Secondness
and Thirdness.
You seem to focus only on the words and don't examine what they mean
in actual actions and in the actual formation of matter.
Again- there's no point in arguing about this - as you will resort
to insults [telling me that I am 'non-Peircean']...and such
interactions are not a productive debate.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Wed 29/03/17 3:48 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: As I've said repeatedly - the key factor of Peircean semiosis
is that it is not mechanical or linear but enables an understanding
of complex morphological generation which is enabled by constant
transformative RELATIONS between TRIADIC PROCESSES. Again, the full
triad is the SIGN. None of the other 'parts' of the triadic SIGN
exist 'per se' on their own. They only function - as functions -
within the full triadic interaction.
This is what I personally have a hard time recognizing as Peircean
semeiosis, which is certainly not mechanical or linear--i.e.,
dyadic--but I understand it to be a matter of triadic relations,
rather than relations between triadic processes. Again, the Sign is
not a triadic function, it is one participant in an irreducibly
triadic relation. The Sign (or Representamen), the Object (Dynamic
and Immediate), and the Interpretant (Immediate, Dynamic, and Final)
are not themselves relations, they are all real subjects from a
logical and metaphysical standpoint. Each of them, as well as their
relations to each other, can be a constituent of any of the three
Universes--a Possible (1ns), an Existent (2ns), or a Necessitant
(3ns). The Sign itself is a qualisign/mark, sinsign/token, or
legisign/type. The Sign's relation to its Object is what makes it an
icon, index, or symbol. The Sign's relation to its Interpretant is
what makes it a rheme, dicent, or argument.
I find all of this to be fully consistent with a straightforward
reading of Peirce's extensive writings on semeiosis. At the risk of
being labeled once more as "literal-bound," a quick search of the
Collected Papers turns up zero instances of "habit(s) of formation,"
"morphological generation," "triadic process," or "triadic function."
While these are evidently "key factors" in Taborskyan semiosis, to me
this suggests rather strongly that Peircean semeiosis has nothing to
do with any of them. On the other hand, "triadic relation" appears
84 times. What is unscientific or arrogant about simply stating what
the textual evidence clearly indicates to me? You express just as
much certainty about the validity of your views as I do about mine.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Helmut, list - I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a 'fact'. I
think that is introducing another set of semantics into the Peircean
framework and I'm not sure that it has any function.
Again, the Dynamic Object functions ONLY within the triadic process
of semiosis. It doesn't 'exist' per se. Certainly, objective reality
exists but - within a semiosic process. That insect is objectively
'real', but it functions within a semiosic process made up of the
basic triad: Object-Representamen-Interpret ant. And we can
fine-tune that into Dynamic Object-Immediate Object/Representamen/
Immediate-Dynamic-Final Interpretants.
So- the insect, in interaction with the bird watching it - functions
as a Dynamic Object within the bird's awareness of it. And...an
Immediate Object..which is transformed by the bird's 'mind' into an
Immediate and Dynamic Interpretant of 'possible food'.
But, the insect is itself presenting itself as a Dynamic
Interpretant of the biological processes that resulted in its actual
existence as 'that insect'.
And of course, the other semiosic processes are included: the habits
of morphological formation held within the Representamen of both the
insect and bird.
AND - increase the complexity by acknowledging that each 'part' can
be in a different categorical mode [Firstness, Secondness,
Thirdness].
As I've said repeatedly - the key factor of Peircean semiosis is
that it is not mechanical or linear but enables an understanding of
complex morphological generation which is enabled by constant
transformative RELATIONS between TRIADIC PROCESSES. Again, the full
triad is the SIGN. None of the other 'parts' of the triadic SIGN
exist 'per se' on their own. They only function - as functions -
within the full triadic interaction.
There is no point, in my view, of analyzing Peirce as 'just another
set of terms' used in mapping the semantic movement of one term to
another term. - the key concept in Peirce is that it sets up an
infrastructure enabling complex morphological transformations of
'meaning -to-meaning' . One morphology to another morphology.
Someone else who ventured into this area, is Spencer Brown, with his
Laws of Form. As he wrote:
"the theme of this book is that a universe comes into being when a
space is severed or taken apart. The skin of a living organism cuts
off an outside from an inside. So does the circumference of a circle
in a plane. By tracing the way we represent such a severance, we can
begin to reconstruct, with an accuracy and coverage that appear
almost uncanny, the basic forms underlying linguistic, mathematical,
physical, and biological science, and can being to see how the
familiar laws of our own experience follow inexorably from the
original act of severance". [1973:v].
Now - that sounds VERY similar to Peirce's cosmological outline
[1.412] of the emergence of the FORMS within the universe. [See his A
Guess at the Riddle].
And, as Spencer Brown acknowledges the influence of Peirce - one can
see that influence throughout his remarkable book.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
