BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon
1] Mind, which is to say, Thirdness, is operative in 6 of the ten
sign classes. Of these 6, there are only 3 that also use the Symbolic
Relation. Therefore - my view is that only 3 of the ten refer to
human semiosis.[And only ONE of these three is an Argument].
But - Mind operates in those three that do NOT use the Symbolic
Relations.
But - the other four sign classes, which do not use Mind, are still
triadic - and I consider that these too are semiosic. They will
become part of a more complex Mind-filled interaction. Even if one
sees a dyadic interaction, my view is that it is part of a larger
triadic interaction. A tree bending in the wind can be superficially
considered dyadic, but the matter-that-is-a-tree is operative within a
triadic composition - and the air molecules/heat etc that is the wind
is also operative within a triadic composition.
To say that 'the whole universe is composed of signs' [as Peirce
said ] - would you consider that reductionistic? That is - is a
'universal' - reductionistic?
2] I've pointed out your logical error of declaring that a metaphor
sets up a fictional image vs a factual image. The FACT that the
chemical-realm interacts using MIND does NOT mean that these same
chemicals use symbols and argument semiosis. I've pointed out to you
that MIND operates in SIX of the ten basic classes - and the Argument
only appears in ONE; and the SYMBOL only appears in THREE. That means
that a chemical semiosic interaction, which involves MIND - can be,
for example, a Rhematic Indexical Legisign, that most basic and I'd
say most common in nature - of Peircean signs.
A symbol is an intellectual and totally arbitrary construct. That is
why I confine it to the human species, whose knowledge base is
intellectual and arbitrary and thus, open to constant change.
Edwina
On Wed 21/02/18 8:39 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:55 PM, Edwina Taborsky 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
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 .
