Edwina, List: Our very different readings of Peirce and models of semiosis are manifesting again, so I will leave it at that, with two exceptions.
First, Peirce *did not* say that "the whole universe is composed of signs." I assume that you are alluding to this long sentence, which should always be read in its entirety. CSP: It seems a strange thing, when one comes to ponder over it, that a sign should leave its interpreter to supply a part of its meaning; but the explanation of the phenomenon lies in the fact that the entire universe--not merely the universe of existents, but all that wider universe, embracing the universe of existents as a part, the universe which we are all accustomed to refer to as "the truth"--that all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs. (CP 5.448, EP 2:394; 1906) Second, you are still talking about the explicit metaphor from EP 2:392, rather than offering me reasons *from the text itself* to believe that CP 5.119 is "mere metaphoric rhetoric." Regards, Jon S. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:20 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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, 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 <[email protected]> > 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 [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 .
