Mike - thanks for your comments and questions. See my replies below:
On Fri 20/10/17 6:24 PM , Mike Bergman [email protected] sent:
Hi Edwina, List,
You answered just as I thought you might:
On 10/20/2017 4:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif;font-size:12px; } I'd say that Peirce's semiosis is
more basic than and necessarily includes the three categories.
The three categories are, in themselves, purely intellectual
constructs. But Peirce, as a pragmatist, doesn't live in the
world of 'pure intellect' but is concerned with and is
exploring the nature of the cognitive world, which is to say,
the operation of Mind and how Mind operates within/as Matter -
which includes all matter [Matter is effete Mind] - both
physical and biological...as well as the operation of the human
mind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MB:So, let me ask a couple of more questions.
*Where may the ideas of spontaneous chance or of the
"surprising fact" be explained by/captured by/explicated by
semiosis?
*How may semiosis provide an explanatory framework for the Big
Bang?
*Where/how is the sense of continuity captured by Peircean
semiosis?
*How does one explain abductive reasoning given the terminology
of semiosis?
*How does one distinguish between perceptions (perceived
external actions) and our own actions (our pushing against the
door) using Peircean semiosis?
ET: All thought is triadic; all matter-as-matter - is triadic. The
semiosic process ..is the process of the triadic interaction and uses
the categorical modes.
1. Chance is a state/feeling of pure Firstness. ALL three parts of
the triad are in a mode of Firstness: a rhematic iconic qualisign.
2. I see the Big Bang as Mind transforming energy into Matter or
individual units. The transformations of Mind-Matter are semiosic
processes.
3. Continuity is Thirdness, a vital part of the semiosic process of
Mind-as-Matter.
4. Abductive reasoning has already been well explained in this
thread - Where Mind [3rdness]moves from its interaction with the
FACTS (Secondness] to hypothesis construction [which I would define
as Thirdness degenerate in the first degree or 3-2] - which is then
tested within induction [2ndness] to form a rule/law [3rdness]
5. If I understand your question - you are asking about the
difference between a conceptual image and an action. The former could
be a rhematic indexical legisign uses[all three modes - the quality,
the effect of the external act as perceived , the mental concept of
it ]...and an action, which could include all three or only two of
the modes...eg..a rhematic indexical sinsign - where you
spontaneously hit out at something you see.
My point is basically that the modal categories have no reality in
themselves but are a basic component of reality and existence; they
function, as modes of organization of mind/matter, within the
semiosic triadic process.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MB: My suspicion is that, with much legerdemain, one might be
able to formulate responses to these questions in the terminology
of semiosis, But, even so, I further suspect these would be
derivatives of terminology (concepts) already found in the
universal categories. For example, to me, the ground of Firstness
is spontaneous chance. I'm not quite sure how to treat that in the
context of semiosis and sign terminology. I think I do know how to
address these questions using the universal categories.
I personally see semiosis as more akin to information theory,
Spontaneous chance leads to new information structures, with
evolution favoring those representamen that provide the fastest free
energy consumption (which is equivalent to the greatest energy
dissipation or maximum entropy production), all of which occurs in
those localized cosmic conditions where there are very high free
energy spikes (topologically the spines of a porcupinefish); namely,
Earth for one. Approaching the limits to "truth" is the
evolutionary favoring of dissipative structures (representamen)
that maximize this entropy production in the fastest increment of
time. DNA and social networks are two approximate examples.
ET: No- I reject semiosis as information theory- within the common
understanding of information theory as
'concepts-about-this-and-that'. I see semiosis as the process of the
formation of matter/concepts...With that in mind, I see your point
about ..not the representamen/mediator as the agent of diversity
[which is your point] ..but the whole semiosic process as enabling
BOTH stability AND diversity. You cannot have a universe with only
entropy/dissipation; the system must enable the stability of
continuity of Type. DNA slows down entropy; social networks slow down
entropy. Diversity/change develops in the peripheries - not at the
centres which are zones of stability.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MB: Signs, to me, are for sure the mediating construct for this
process. If you recall, Peirce first embedded his triadic logic
between the bookends of Being and Substance. I have come to feel,
however, that Peircean scholars who focus on semiosis, which I
know includes yourself, are resorting to Maslow's hammer. I
prefer the richer toolbox of the universal categories.
ET: But - the categories are a basic component of
semiosis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MB: I'm not quite sure one can be pragmatic without being
intelligent. Pragmatists should adopt the best logic, concepts,
terminology and methods available in order to address their
inquiries of need in the quickest and most effective manner. It's
too bad we can't ask these questions directly to Peirce.
ET: I don't know what you mean by 'being intelligent'. To me, a
paramecium has 'Mind' and is pragmatic. Same with a bacterium, a
molecule...a tree.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since my questions, in terms of our differing perspectives, are
likely more rhetorical than anything else, I look forward to your
responses, if any, but will likely cease commenting on this thread.
Thanks for your input. I thank Gary R. for starting this thread.
Best, Mike
Edwina
On Fri 20/10/17 4:36 PM , Michael Bergman
[email protected] sent:
Hi Edwina,
On 10/20/2017 2:45 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Mike - here, I strongly disagree with you, when
you wrote:
>
>
> Your comment ' we need to talk about signs when
our discourse is
> representation'...is something that is very
common in the semiological
> world, but is, I suggest, invalid in the
Peircean world.
Please. Forget the labels and the easy dismissal that I have
engaged in
some Saussurean fallacies here.
All I am suggesting is to focus on the "nature of the
object," which I
don't think I or Peirce would say is the same as the "nature
of the sign".
What I have tried to suggest is that the more fundamental
"Peircean"
interpretation comes from the lens of the universal
categories, which,
by the nature of usage and wealth of terminology, subsumes
the notion of
semeiosis. 1ns, 2ns and 3ns provide a richer pool of
concepts for
investigating metaphysical questions than does the
terminology of
representation (signs). Otherwise, why does Peirce ever use
them?
None of this is to say the I like the child better than the
parent or
vice versa, just that the universal categories are best
suited to
questions of metaphysics, semiosis to sign representations.
As an exercise, please just answer this three-choice
question:
A. Peirce's semiosis subsumes the idea of his universal
categories
B. Peirce's universal categories subsume the idea of his
semiosis
C. Peirce's semiosis is synonomous with/equivalent to the
universal
categories.
I don't believe that picking B requires me to burn at the
stake. ;)
Mike
>
> Semiosis and signs are NOT about
'representation' but about the
> true nature of reality and actuality - both of
which function only
> within semiosis, which is to say, within the
triadic Sign. Therefore -
> metaphysics and the 'true nature of Objects' is
the real topic of
> discourse within any examination of Signs.
>
> That blueprint, as a rhematic iconic sinsign -
is its semiosic
> definition as AN OBJECT. Nothing to do with
'representation' of the
> blueprint, but everything to do with defining
its nature as an object.
> With defining how it exists and how we interact
with it.
>
> 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 .
