Gary F, list:
Exactly - it's Peircean semiotics that we are focused on. And that
remains - a triadic process - something that can disappear when one
focuses only on the individual terminology. The key to Peircean
semiosis is that the triad is ONE 'complete' action of three subsets
or relations or correlates or whatever terms one uses [and Peirce
used both correlate and relation]....and what is important, in my
view, is considering what that WHOLE process does.
I suspect, moreover, that you, Gary F., think of a function only as
an equation of two terms, i.e., where x=y. But a function has three
terms, of f(x)=y - and that's NOT a representational interaction but
a transformative interaction.
For example, you can get a number of hydrogen and oxygen atoms
lurking around [X or Dynamic Objects]..and the Function
[f/representamen] will say: "According to my Rules of Chemical
Organization, you objects will be transformed into
Y/Interpretant..Water Molecules.
And...I hear some bird sounds [X/Dynamic Object]. According to
F/Representamen or my Knowledge Base....I transform these sounds to
be: Y/Interpretant/Robins.
then..I take the Y/Interpretant of Robin...and it becomes X/Dynamic
Object.
According to F/Representamen/my Knowledge Base....it is transformed
to a new Interpretant/Y...to mean 'It's Spring!'
[That's wishful thinking, I know].
Edwina
On Sun 21/01/18 9:46 AM , [email protected] sent:
John,
Yes, there are plenty of “earlier thoughts along those lines” of
a semiotic generalized beyond the human experience of signs. In fact
they are “as plenty as blackberries,” if you read Peirce
chronologically looking for them. His anti-psychologism, for example,
which he consistently maintained from the 1860s on, is essentially a
refusal to limit the application of logical principles to what goes
on in human minds or brains. But his logic/semiotic was always
generalized from the human experience of sign use, as he says in CP
1.540. And necessarily so, because “experience is our only
teacher” and we humans can only learn from our experience.
I still don’t see a “change in terminology” here, unless
it’s the change in usage of the word “sign” which occurred
after 1903. The terminological change was that Peirce gave up using
the term “sign” in a way that limited it to the human realm. In
Lowell 3.13 he distinguished between “sign” and
“representamen”; after 1905 the distinction disappears and
“sign” means the same thing as “representamen.” But that
change was only terminological, in my view; there was no change in
the object to which Peirce used those words to direct our attention.
So I don’t see what it is that you think needs more explanation.
By the way, this is one of the areas where the unPeircean use of the
word “sign” to refer to a triadic relation (rather than a subject
of a triadic relation) tends to cause confusion. Peirce’s 1903
distinction between “sign” and “representamen” was not a
distinction between the whole triadic relation and one component of
it. This terminological issue is perfectly clear if you read what
Peirce actually wrote instead of someone else’s revised version of
semiotics — and if it’s Peircean semiotics that you’re trying
to understand.
Gary f.
-----Original Message-----
From: John F Sowa [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 23:11
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
On 1/20/2018 4:54 PM, [email protected] [1] wrote:
> What change in terminology are you referring to?
I was thinking about the following point:
Gary F
> Peircean semiotics is naturally associated with a notion of
“sign”
> which is not limited to human use of signs; but the Lowell
lectures
> may represent his first clear move in that direction.
I was asking about signs "not limited to human use".
If the Lowell lectures show the "first clear move", are there
earlier unclear moves? Hints? Suggestions? Musements?
The clearest MSS were the most likely to be selected for publication
in CP and EP. But there may be fragmentary MSS with passages that are
crossed out. Perhaps he had earlier thoughts along those lines, but
he didn't have a "sop for Cerberus".
John
Links:
------
[1]
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 .
