BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list:
1] Just a first quibble - you say that you wish to receive only
'constructive' criticism. But 'constructive' is a subjective term;
what you find constructive vs unwelcome - is strictly within your own
opinion. That's why I hesitate to get into long debates with you
because they degenerate into your defensive claims of your position.
2] And - second quibble. You call the 'Six correlates' .. logical
Subjects. I call them 'Six nodal sites' and Six Relations'. So?
Could we possibly mean the same thing in pragmatic terms? The reason
I prefer the terms in my explanation of the semiosic process is that
the noun of Subject in modern terms gives it more individual agential
power than I think the actual complex semiosic process provides for
it. And the use of Relation [which Peirce also uses] - emphasizes the
interactional nature of semiosis.
3] I disagree with you about the use of 'universe' vs 'categorical
mode' and I'll continue with the 6 categorical modes. And I think
that the semiosic process can't be broken down into dyads. [I'm aware
of Peirce's statements both rejecting and considering dyads]. I don't
consider the ten classes as 'ten trichotomies' but as class examples
of basic semiosic triadic processes. ,, and the triad is different
from your triad of Od-S-If. It's DO-R-DI.
4] I certainly acknowledge your attempting to model a SINGLE
instance of a semiosic interaction - as long as we also acknowledge
that no such thing could possibly exist, because that single instance
only functions within a complex adaptive system.
I would say that I am more interested in the operation of the
semiosic process as complex; I'm interested in how, for example, a
plant can gather information about its changing environment and
develop new habits of its formation, such that the next generation of
that same plant is adaptive and evolving. To me, the Peircean
semiosis - as a complex system - provides those answers. BUT - not as
modeled within a single instance.
Edwina
On Sat 24/03/18 10:53 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
I appreciate the distinction that you make between our different
projects, but I think that you are overestimating the ambition of
mine. I am well aware of the difference between complicated and
complex, as well as the difference between complex and
complex-adaptive. I fully recognize the complex-adaptive nature of
concrete semiosis and have no desire to overlook or minimize it.
The goal of my current inquiry--which is still very much a work in
progress--is simply to gain a better understanding of what you call
"the basic model"; i.e., what the six Correlates are, and how they
relate to one another in a single instance of semiosis. I can no
more hope to capture the entire process with this admittedly
"analytic and abstract" approach than that my mathematical models of
actual buildings will reflect their precise structural behavior. In
both cases, I have no expectation of achieving complete knowledge;
but I will likely know more than I did before, which is always the
objective of any kind of reasoning (cf. CP 5.365; 1877).
On my reading of Peirce, the six Correlates are not "nodal sites,"
they are logical Subjects. In addition, there are three dyadic
Relations between Correlates (Od-S, S-Id, S-If), as well as the
governing triadic Relation (Od-S-If). Each of these Correlates and
Relations is divided into three Universes--Possible, Existent,
Necessitant--not six "Categorical Modes." These are the ten
trichotomies (CP 8.344-374, EP 2:482-490; 1908) that serve as the
basis for identifying 66 classes of Signs, once they are arranged
into the proper "order of determination" (EP 2:481; 1908)--a task
that Peirce himself never completed, which is probably why I find it
so fascinating to explore.
What are the practical implications of all this? I have no idea;
and since, as Gary R. noted, this is (so far) a strictly theoretical
inquiry, it really does not matter. I may come up with some along the
way, or I may end up just leaving that question as something for
others to answer. I am genuinely eager for constructive feedback
from anyone who cares to offer it, but merely asserting that I am
wasting my time is not going to deter me from pressing forward.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Stephen, Gary R, list
Stephen, thanks for your post. Yes, bogus is a strong term but Gary
R has a point - so, I'll try to explain.
1]My analysis of the Sign as a WFF [well-formed formula] is not a
model of the semiosic process, the triad, but an analytic model of
the Six Categorical Modes; 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 2-1, 3-1, 3-2. It uses a
Cartesian quadrant to show their spatial and temporal identities;
I.e., local or non-local space and three modes of time.
The only image of the semiosic process is the Y shape.
I think that putting the Six Relations into an analytic format -
which is NOT a model of them in operation - helps the reader to
understand their different spatial and temporal identities.
2] However - what Jon [JAS] is attempting to do seems to me to be an
attempt to model the semiosic process. That's different.
The semiosic process at its most basic consists of potentially, six
different nodal sites: the DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI. The Relations between
these 'nodal sites'; e.g.., between the DO and IO; between the IO and
R...can each be in a different categorical mode; i.e., genuine
Thirdness, degenerate Thirdness. [Those 6 Relations that I was
referring to in my paper]. And we must remember that the Six
Relations bring with them different spatial and temporal identities-
which means that the process is not a simple linear path.
This, to me, means that the Semiosic Process is a Complex Adaptive
System. A CAS is not simply a 'complicated' system; that is,
'complex' does not mean 'complicated'. A CAS means that the whole
cannot be broken down into its parts. The CAS doesn't function as a
'collection of parts'.
I don't think that the issue is that 'we just have to get a better
model'. I think that the Peircean semiosis is a CAS- that's what
gives it its dynamic explanatory capacity among not merely human
cognition - but within the biological and physical realms. Saussurian
semiology, the works of Morris etc - these are all mechanical systems;
they can be explained using their 'bits and parts'. But they have
little to do with real life! You can't reduce a CAS to a collection
of parts.
3] The attempt by JAS to do just this; break the semiosic process
down into a collection of parts, with each part specifically having a
single meaning or action - seems to me, to be doomed to failure. I
hesitate to critique his model because he gets quite defensive about
it - but - I will claim, again, that a reductionist modeling of a
complex adaptive system simply can't be done.
All you can do when trying to explain a CAS, I think, is to analyze
its components and some of their relations - which may even be too
numerous to do. After all, that one cellular organism is interacting,
not just with one other cell - but with multiple other informational
nodes from numerous nodes. So, information is coming from numerous
sites - which can be at the same time, operating as a DO, a DI, a
R...and so on.
I think that Peirce's basic 'set' - the Six Nodes [so to speak] and
the Six Categorical Relations - is the basic model. I don't know that
we can constructively outline the paths of interaction any more than
that. I think we end up being unable to explain the adaptive and
constructive capacities of Peircean semiosis.
Edwina
On Sat 24/03/18 6:14 AM , "Stephen C. Rose" stever...@gmail.com [4]
sent:
Bogus is a strong term. I think Edwina is suggesting that we observe
the pragmatic maxim. What is the practical effect or substance of a
consideration? What is the whole of the matter? What is the end of
this particular effort to parse a particular sign? Triadic philosophy
asks how what we are considering is tolerant, helpful and democratic.
It considers how it relates to freedom. love and justice. The end
result is an expression or action that can be noted and described.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose [5]
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:07 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
Edwina, list,
You wrote:
"I think that the various comments and concerns by others on the
list, that attempts to set up an analytic and abstract model of the
semiosic process, with each part defined within an exact and singular
term and providing an exact and singular action - actually deny the
real nature of semiosis."
Who here is presenting a model "with each part defined within an
exact and singular term and providing an exact and singular action"?
Besides the fact that Peirce himself made many "analytic and
abstract model [s] of the semiosic process," noting time and again
that Logic as Semeiotic is a theoretical science (this is especially
evident in its first two branches, theoretical grammar and critic),
many Peirce scholars and other semioticians have found that
analytical and abstract analyses and models can assist them in
understanding certain underlying structures and processes. And so the
pages of many journals--and not just Transactions--are filled with
such analyses, models, diagrams, etc.
And this is the case for science more generally: not only does it
occur in virtually all sciences that I know of, but most
scientists--at least those that I know in person (and I know quite a
few) or by reputation--hold that models and abstract analysis do not
necessarily deny reality whatsoever. Quite the contrary. They are but
another tool to help understand reality.
And your own work, including one of your more recent papers, takes
an "analytical and abstract" approach to semeiotic involving models
and diagrams and the like. See: "The Nature of the Sign as a WFF - A
Well-Formed Formula" (in WORD format) [6]
http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/
[7]library/aboutcsp/taborsky/taborsky-sign-wff.doc
ET: "The morphological form is a well-formed formula (wff ), a Sign,
an organized process of information. The Sign is formed within a
triadic set of relations, which are encoded spatial and temporal
measurements. Using a Cartesian quadrant, the six possible relational
modes are examined to show how reality is moulded within both
symmetrical and asymmetrical functions."
Many approaches to inquiry are, as I see it, quasi-necessary in the
sense that "getting at" reality requires these varied approaches,
including (but not limited to) more abstract and analytical ones. I
do not see why both more or less abstract inquiries ought not be
undertaken.
And given some of your own inquiry--for example the paper above, not
to mention much that you've done on this list--I consider your
critique bogus.
Best,
Gary
Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical Thinking Communication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York718
482-5690 [8]
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
List
I think that the various comments and concerns by others on the
list, that attempts to set up an analytic and abstract model of the
semiosic process, with each part defined within an exact and singular
term and providing an exact and singular action - actually deny the
real nature of semiosis.
As Peirce noted, his pragmatacism was rooted in reality, a reality
that is necessarily dynamic - and not in models, not in closed
abstractions of thought. The fact that his semiosis includes not
merely three basic modal categories - but- if you include the
degenerate modes - there are 6 modal categories - as well as two
objects and three interpretants suggests a complex system.
No complex system operates deductively, but as has been pointed out
- it operates inductively. And - abductively. An abstract technical
model has no capacity to show or even allow such actions.
In addition, each semiosic triad is networked with other triads -
each with their own categorical modes - adding to the complex nature
of the process.
That is, semiosis is a so-called 'far-from-equilibrium' complex
adaptive system - and can't be outlined within an abstract analytical
deductive model.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'stever...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5] http://amazon.com/author/stephenrose
[6]
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/taborsky/taborsky-sign-wff.doc
[7] http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/
[8] http://webmail.primus.ca/tel:(718)%20482-5690
-----------------------------
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 .
