Edwina, Clark, List: Thank you for beginning what promises to be an interesting discussion. I might offer some comments later, but for now I am simply starting a new thread, because I think that the topic warrants doing so.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Clark - OK - I'll put in a long comment here on how I see the > non-philosophical aspects of Peirce's work. Thanks for your encouragement > to do so. > > Basic axioms: that our universe operates as energy-transforming-to-matter, > or ‘things’ [Peirce used the term ‘things’ often] via semiosic actions. > > 1. > > The emergence of Matter: Peirce: 1.412 “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…..” The point here is that > matter emerged as differentiated and also, as then connected by habits and > by kinetic interaction. > > The origin of Material matter: 1.362 “the starting point of the universe, > God the Creator is the Absolute First; the terminus of the universe, God > completely revealed, is the Absolute Second; every state of the universe at > a measurable point of time is the third……..If your creed is that the whole > universe is approaching in the infinitely distance future a state having a > general character different from that toward which we look back in the > infinitely distance past, you make the absolute to consist in two distinct > real points and are an evolutionist” > > I consider the term ‘God’ to be a synonym for Mind. See Peirce’s analysis > – and I’ll only refer to a few: > > “Mind is a propositional function of the widest possible universe, such > that its values are the meanings of all signs whose actual effects are in > effective interconnection” [ 4.550]. > > NOTE: I note the term function which to me suggests that Mind is an > action and a process. I note also the term signs which to me cannot refer > simply to the representamen but to the whole articulated triad. > > 4.551: “Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in > the work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical > world”….But as there cannot be a General without Instances embodying it, so > there cannot be thought without Signs. “ > > Note: Sign is capitalized in the original. And Peirce also suggests being > careful lest we set up a “danger that our system may not represent every > variety of non-human thought”. I take this to mean that his system is > intended to represent every variety of non-human thought – and therefore, > one does not require to go FIRST to the study of human thought to > understand and use Peircean semiosis in the non-human realm. And I note his > comments on protoplasm and crystals etc – which I won’t repeat here as the > post would be too long - and it's already long enough! > > Therefore, the Absolute First, understood as Feeling, but not the > sensational view of that term, but as a primeval Will. [Again- I can > find the reference..] > > 1. > > The starting point as Symbol: Certainly, one can define this original > Mind as a type of symbol – but not the human understanding of the term > which puts it in a mode of Thirdness or art-i-factual, but I understand > it as will, or desire to continuity of that material existence without the > awareness of this existence; and the nature of this existence is, as > evolutionary, open in its expression. Therefore it is not an iconic or > indexical mode of articulation which would reject diversity and spontaneity > of new forms and complexity but symbolic in that the articulation is free > and open. > > > 2. > > I understand these ‘things’ as having, necessarily FORM. The form, > which sets up a differential boundary, sets matter up in a mode of > Secondness, > which is stabilized by the habits-of-formation of Thirdness. > > > > I won’t go into the many references to Secondness in Peirce’s work - since > there are so many – but it is obvious that matter within a mode of > Secondness MUST have a differential FORM – or it would be unable to carry > out the key action of Secondness, which is – to interact. > > > 1. > > The method of this movement from pure Mind [pure energy] to particular > Matter – is by the triadic process of the Sign, which I understand as > irreducibly triadic. > > “I will sketch a proof that the idea of meaning is irreducible to those of > quality and reaction. It depends on two main premises. The first is that > every genuine triadic relation involves meaning, as meaning is obviously a > triadic relation. The second is that a triadic relation is inexpressible by > means of dyadic relations alone”. 1.345 > > Now – with regard to the above, my interpretation is that pure Mind in > that mode of Firstness or potentiality – transforming to matter is an ‘act > of meaning’. And, Peirce says that such a method of so doing is triadic. It > must involve three ‘nodes’ so to speak: the > Object-Representamen-Interpretant’. > Then, I am aware that many on this list understand the semiosic action as > ‘the sign/representamen’ in a relation with the Object and the > Interpretant. I reject this interpretation for two reasons. First – the > interaction of the Representamen-Object can be and usually is, in a > different categorical mode than the relation with the Interpretant. Second > – if one does not acknowledge this capacity for modal differences, it > reduces the interaction to ‘dyadic relations’. > > Therefore, I follow the graph with three tails as outlined in 1.347. This > of course enables complex networking, where a Dynamic Interpretant in one > triad can function as the Dynamic Object in another triad. > > I feel that these basic axioms enable one to explore the physico-chemical > and biological realms as complex semiosic processes. > > Edwina > > -- > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Thu 30/03/17 5:42 PM , CLARK GOBLE [email protected] sent: > > On Mar 30, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > So- given the make-up of the posters on this list and their interest [in > philosophy] then, I don't see the point of bringing up the > non-philosophical focus of Peirce's work. > > I should note that while my own interests are primarily philosophical, my > background is actual primarily physics not philosophy. I enjoy the > non-philosophical topics quite a bit although I often don’t know enough > about the topic to say much. I’ve brought up some of the non-philosophical > topics here before too such as the relationship of category theory in > advanced physics or mathematics as it relates to Peirce. Not that I know > much about category theory, but a few others made comments I learned from. > > So I am actually pretty interesting in the applied semiotics. Indeed while > my interests are primarily philosophical I’ve read a reasonable amount on > applies semiotics in various arenas. > > I seem to remember a discussion a few months ago on political implications > of Peirce’s thought. I focused primarily on his more conservative > tendencies in his critical common sensism but also the focus on inquiry. > > Anyway, please comment on the non-philosophical points. Even if I don’t > typically comment I frequently read them. > >
----------------------------- 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 .
