Edwina, List: 1. What exactly are you claiming that I deny? I have repeatedly quoted CP 4.551 (crystals and bees), while you are the one who confines Symbols and Arguments to human conceptual semiosis. What I *have *pointed out is that Peirce *did not* treat triadic semoisis as the *only *kind of action operative in the world; there is *also *dyadic action/reaction.
CSP: All dynamical action, or action of brute force, physical or psychical, either takes place between two subjects,--whether they react equally upon each other, or one is agent and the other patient, entirely or partially,--or at any rate is a resultant of such actions between pairs. (EP 2:411; 1907) I obviously *do not* consider the *entire *natural world to be dyadic and reactive--after all, my own reply to Gary R. specifically discussed "natural Signs"--but clearly *some *aspects of nature *are *dyadic and reactive. It is just as reductionist to insist that everything is triadic and semiosic as it is to insist that everything is dyadic and reactive. 2. In that case, the fact that you interpret CP 5.119 as "mere metaphoric rhetoric," for which you still have not provided any kind of reasonable justification, likewise does not suggest or imply that the universe is not *really *a Symbol and an Argument. Please try to convince me--why should I believe that it is just a metaphor? It is textbook question-begging simply to reply, "Because Symbols and Arguments are, by definition, confined to human conceptual semiosis." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary R - thanks for a wonderful post as moderator. I don't know how to > describe it - but- it was 'reasonable and moderate'. I have two comments: > > 1] Since Peirce considered that Mind is operative in all of nature, > then, Mind operates within the physic-chemical, and biological realms as > well as within the human conceptual realm. As such, Mind must operate > within a triadic semiosic process in all realms, for Mind operates only > within a triad. > > I note that Jon AS denies this - and considers that the 'natural world' is > dyadic and reactive rather than operating within the triad of Mind. Again, > I note that Peirce insisted that Mind is operative even within crystals. > And by Mind's operation, I do not mean one 'hide-bound with habits' but > capable of interaction. Atoms interact within molecules - according to > their laws of organization - and therefore, are within the domain of Mind. > > I consider that the Quasi-mind is, as I said, the LOCAL emergence of this > universal Mind, which occurs between an utterer and an interpreter, in a > Local situation. I think this is a simple explanation of Quasi-Mind and > feel that no further explanation is needed. The nature of this interaction > as Local and direct [which includes therefore Firstness and Secondness] is > added to the habits of Thirdness within both parties. That's also why I > refer to the role of the Rhematic Indexical Legisign - but that's not the > important point. > > 2] The fact that the example of the liquid in test-tubes is a metaphor of > the operation of Quasi-minds does not suggest or imply that Quasi-minds do > not exist or function within chemical compounds and their interactions. > > To say that the 'hurricane wind was like a charging bull' doesn't imply > that a bull does not charge'. The metaphor is just a vivid comparison > between two things/events that are similar in type. Both can exist. > > 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
