BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
I am not offering you MY model as an alternative. I am suggesting to
you that your model - which you claim is based strictly on Peirce -
and which I claim is instead your personal interpretation of Peirce -
[and a flawed interpretation ] - has problems. Its basic problem, as I
see it, is that it has no ability to introduce or allow novelty,
adaptation and cannot allow material and conceptual evolution. That's
because it reduces the power of two basic modes, 1ns and 2ns to almost
irrelevance. Matter and concepts formed within these two modes are, to
you, not Signs and therefore, outside of the semiosic process.
You may disagree with my claim that Peircean semiosis includes the
material world - but - you'll find such assertions within Peirce.
[4.551] and his outline of protoplasm which has feelings and so on.
I'm not going to dig up references - they are there. And to say that
IF one asserts that physical matter operates within semiosic triads,
THEN, one rejects dyadic relations - is illogical. It is not an
either-or situation. ALL existential units can engage in both dyadic
and triadic relations.
I see your model as essentially theistic, in a Hegelian 'final
answer' manner - that is, you seem to consider, with your focus on
form-matter-entelechy, a perfect 'end-point' of almost perfection.
But, Peircean semiosis denies this, with its insertion of Firstness;
i.e., chance, freedom, aberrations. You seem to demote Firstness and
Secondness to almost irrelevant actions - but, I claim that in
Peircean semiosis, all three modes are vital. The world is made up of
existential objects [objective reality] - and chance - and laws. All
are vital components of a complex system. The way I read your model
is that these are almost 'phases' of existence...heading towards a
glorious endpoint of the Legisign. But my view of Peircean cosmology
is that there is no end-point.
Look - if a semiosic action is CLASSIFIED within a categorical mode,
this is not simply an analytical library action by a human observer.
It's REAL. The semiosic action is actually operating within one or
two or three of those categorical modes! You can use different words
- but - to say that something is a 'constituent of a universe of
possibles' - has to mean the SAME thing! It means that something is
functionally operating within a mode of Firstness! Are you actually
saying that Peirce, in 1908 abandoned the three modal categories???
No- I do not understand your focus on Form-Matter-Entelechy. I see
it as a comparable theism to Hegel's 'final synthesis' and his equal
indifference to the realities of comparable actions of both Firstness
and Secondness. As I said - I can't see your separation of matter and
form - something rejected by Aristotle - and Peirce was an
Aristotelian.
Edwina
On Sat 31/03/18 11:07 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
Your points here are well-taken, but simply telling me (repeatedly)
that my model does not work and offering only one alternative--which
I have already rejected for various reasons--is not helpful.
Instead, I am looking for someone to show me that there are
implications of my model that are inconsistent with what I consider
to be its source, Peirce's writings, and/or our general experience of
semiosis as an irreducible element of Reality. Gary R.'s recent
feedback has been more constructive in this way, although I am not
yet convinced that he has fully understood what I am proposing--which
is my fault, of course, and stems at least in part from the fact that
my thinking about these topics is still evolving.
I strongly disagree with your claim that Peirce's view was "that the
world of matter is, right down to its basic atoms, completely
operative within semiosis; - it's all signs, including those atoms."
Where did he ever say such a thing? It implies that there is no
dyadic action at all, in accordance with inveterate habits; yet he
explicitly defined both Matter and existence in terms of such
reactions and habits. I fully acknowledge that Icons and Indices are
operative in the Universe, and that all Symbols involve them; my
current skepticism is entirely directed at the notion that a Sign in
itself can have the Mode of Being of possibility or actuality, given
Peirce's multiple statements that it exists in Replicas and his
comment to Lady Welby that "the highest grade of reality is only
reached by signs" (CP 8.327; 1904).
I reject your entire characterization of Signs as "operating within"
the Categories as "modes." Instead, they are classified according to
whether aspects of the various Correlates and Relations are
constituents of the Universe of Possibles, the Universe of Existents,
or the Universe of Necessitants. This is Peirce's 1908 scheme,
whereas you prefer to stick with his simpler 1903 taxonomy as
sufficient for your purposes. That is fine as far as it goes, but is
not a valid basis for criticizing my attempts to make better sense of
his later and more comprehensive approach. You clearly do not
understand how I (following Peirce) am using the terms "Form" and
"Matter" (along with "Entelechy"), which is probably more evidence of
failure to communicate on my part.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list:
The problem with a debate where one person says that he will only
accept comments that support his own model - i.e., comments such as
'Great model but I think you could make it even better with x, y,
z'....and rejects comments such as: 'I don't see how your model can
work to enable adaptation'...is that the interaction is no longer a
constructive debate - but merely, head-bobbing.
I think, Jon, that your model - as outlined in your various
diagrammes and comments, has moved into a purely abstract mental
outline; I don't see that it, as outlined, has any capacity to
function in the real world of matter. And my view of Peirce is that
the world of matter is, right down to its basic atoms, completely
operative within semiosis; - it's all signs, including those atoms'.
And all signs operate within all three modes. A Qualisign is vital to
our world; a Sinsign is the basic mode of interaction of all life; -
and Legisigns ground all interactions - but - Legisigns themselves
could not exist without their 'cohort of the other two modal Signs'.
Your rejection of Signs operating within Firstness and Secondness -
you don't consider them genuine - means, to me, that you have a
semiosis that is incapable of generating new forms. Your reduction
of Firstness from being a genuine Sign [a qualisign] to merely being
'Form' - which is some kind of disembodied force...and your reduction
of Secondness to merely being 'matter' [How can matter even exist
without its being a Form? - and this matter being incapable of
Relations - seems to me, the basic error of Hegel, who also
concentrated only on 'synthesis'.
Edwina
On Fri 30/03/18 9:37 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
[2] sent:
Edwina, List:
Thank you for correcting yourself on Representamen; the quotation
marks should have indicated to you that I was copying and pasting
directly from your earlier message. In any case, I also reject your
definition of Representamen as "a site of mediation of information
between two sites."
ET: And that's a problem - that you are not prepared to discuss
what you term as 'other models of semiosis', but will only engage in
discussion that supports [not criticizes] your own model.
This is patently absurd. We have discussed your "other model of
semiosis" at great length, and I have explicitly (and repeatedly)
invited constructive criticism of my own model. What I am not
interested in is criticism that basically says (over and over)
nothing more than "Your model is inconsistent with my model."
ET: ... your confining semiosis to only the anthropomorphic realm
sets up, I suggest, a limited semiosic outline.
Again, I have never said or implied that semiosis is confined to
only the anthropomorphic realm.
ET: You can't have a Peircean world operative only in Thirdness.
I have never advocated any such thing. My recent metaphysical
inquiry explicitly includes Form (1ns), Matter (2ns), and Entelechy
(3ns).
ET: That is - I get the sense that you confine Mind to deductive
processes - and reject the vital role of induction [which is the
domain of 2ndness and indexical/Sinsign] and abduction [which is the
domain of 1stness and the Qualisign].
I have never said or implied any such thing. My published work on
"The Logic of Ingenuity" explicitly includes retroduction, deduction,
and induction.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 4:21 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, List - Ah - I see where I did indeed write: 'The Representamen
is 'the organization of the existential nature of the two Objects'
-My apologies. The way I wrote it - it sounds like the Representamen
is organizing two existent Objects. I didn't mean that.
I was unclear in my explanation. I meant by this that the
Representamen is a site of mediation of information between two
sites; it relates the two in a semiosic informational process.
In this case, the two objects are: stove and the hand, - The
Representamen relates the two; it is the informational interface such
that the incoming information from the Dynamic Object, stove which
becomes the Immediate Object] is interpreted via the Representamen
within the other Dynamic Object as an Immediate Interpretant [high
heat]...and into a Dynamic Interpretant [red skin, blisters,
spontaneous cry]..
Again, I apologize for being unclear.
Edwina
On Fri 30/03/18 5:01 PM , Edwina Taborsky [email protected] sent:
Jon, list
And that's a problem - that you are not prepared to discuss what
you term as 'other models of semiosis', but will only engage in
discussion that supports [not criticizes] your own model.
The fact that you reject semiosic processes within the biological
and physical realm - when Peirce himself explicitly included them -
means that your confining semiosis to only the anthropomorphic realm
sets up, I suggest, a limited semiosic outline...and leads you, for
some reason, to focus primarily on symbols. But Peirce was quite
explicit that Mind operates in ALL THREE categorical modes: 1ns, 2ns,
3ns. Not just Thirdness. He was clear that Mind in a sense requires
that capacity for freshness and deviation of Firstness; and requires
that existential bruteness of Secondness - and not just the analysis
of Thirdness. Therefore, the Qualisign and the Sinsign are as
legitimate 'Signs' as is the Legisign. You can't have a Peircean
world operative only in Thirdness.
That is - I get the sense that you confine Mind to deductive
processes - and reject the vital role of induction [which is the
domain of 2ndness and indexical/Sinsign] and abduction [which is the
domain of 1stness and the Qualisign].
You yourself define the 'Sign' as the Representamen and not the
triad.
You say that I define the Representamen as "organization of the
existential nature of the two Objects." Where did I write that??? It
doesn't make any sense. The Representamen is a site of transformative
mediation, where input information from a Dynamic Object is
interpreted. The Representamen transforms information from an object
into an interpretant. How do you arrive at "organization of the
existential nature of the two Objects'???
Edwina
On Fri 30/03/18 4:25 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, List:
I disagree with almost everything that you wrote below, so I will
not bother going through it all point by point; just a few quick
things.
*I have never said nor implied that "mediation is confined to
human mental processes," nor that it can "be reduced to just being a
'medium' or Shannon style conveyance of information." I have simply
repeated Peirce's own definition of a sign as "a medium for the
communication of a Form," and proposed that it applies to individual
Replicas rather than general Signs.
*I am not convinced that the process by which an animal's body
fights an infection or a child's body responds to having her hand
burned cannot be explained entirely in terms of dyadic
action/reaction. However, again, I admit that I do not know enough
about biosemiotics to argue either way.
*I reject your false dichotomy that insists on a choice between
"triad or Representamen" as what I mean by "Sign." I reject your
presupposition that the divisions of the Correlates and Relations are
always and only according to "modes" in some univocal sense. I reject
your definition of "Representamen" as the "organization of the
existential nature of the two Objects." How many more times will I
have to reiterate that our models of semiosis and corresponding
terminology are very different before you stop criticizing it solely
on that basis?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, list:
Thanks for a very wise post.
I very much agree with its assertion that semiosis is NOT
restricted to mediative process guided by general
signs/representamens - but that mediation includes Sinsigns and
Qualisigns. It seems, from the outline provided by JAS, that
mediation is confined to human mental processes - but I consider that
mediation is an action of transformation and includes non-human
processes - ..
Mediation can NOT be reduced to just being a 'medium' or Shannon
style conveyance of information.
With regard to the example of a fever - I don't think that its
existence as a semiosic processes requires any human mental activity.
Indeed, the Dynamic Object, which is infection, when interacting with
another Dynamic Object [the human body, the animal body] - will,
according to the biological laws of matter, induce an Immediate
Interpretant of the immune system setting up chemicals to fight the
infection, which results in a Dynamic Interpretant of a fever.
With regard to the child touching the hot stove - and the resultant
spontaneous cry, this too is a genuine semiosic action - where the
two Dynamic Objects in a relaltional interaction, [the hot stove, the
child's hand] - will produce within the child's body a number of
Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants: the skin of the hand will react
by turning red and blistered; the nervous system will react with a
spontaneous cry. No human MIND is involved in this genuine semiosic
action.
In both cases, however, laws are involved at some hierarchical
level...That is - the spontaneous cry is one semiosic action - which
emerges only as an indexical reaction to pain. The reality that the
body feels pain - is a higher level - the biological laws of matter.
Edwina On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 10:34 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
List - My problems with JAS's list below is partly terminology and
partly conceptual.
1] What do you, JAS, mean by a 'Sign'? The triad or the
Representamen? And do you consider the Representamen to be a 'Sign'
only when it is in a mode of Thirdness? ah- I see from point 2, that
you consider this Sign to be a 'Representamen' and a Legisign, in
otherwords - only within a mode of Thirdness.
My view is that the triad is the Sign - and that it is an action,
where one Dynamic Object interacts, semiosically, with another
Dynamic Object. By a semiosic relationship - I mean the relation of:
DO-[IO-R-II]..and possibly DI. This is a hierarchical relationship,
where the R functions to mediate and transform [not as a simple
Shannon style medium] the input information to its Interpretant.
2] Therefore, I consider that Mind, as an organizing principle of
the universe, operates within ALL categorical modes including those
of emotion and force [1ns and 2ns]. - Therefore, I consider that a
Qualisign and a Sinsign are legitimate mediative actions of semiosis.
The definitive aspect of semiosis, to me, is its triadic organization.
So, a rhematic indexical sinsign - that spontaneous cry, is in my
view, a genuine semiosic action. Dynamic Objects A and B are
interacting, and the organizational nature of Object B induces a
direct mechanical physical reaction. What is the Representamen in
this case? The organization of the existential nature of the two
Objects.
3] I think that an individual existential expression of a symbol,
i.e., a noun, a word - IS a triadic Sign. It doesn't exist 'per se'
but only within an interaction.
4] The biological/physical body recognizes the intrusion of
infection and reacts with a fever. No need for mental reaction. That
infection- fever relationship within a biological body is a semiosic
action.
5] I am hesitant to agree that there is no pure 1stness or 2ndness -
because- within the hierarchy of semiosic actions, there IS a genuine
experience of both. That is, there IS a genuine existential
experience of 1stness - with NO contact with 3rdness. The Rhematic
Iconic Qualisign IS a genuine triadic Sign. Same with 2ndness. The
plethora of daily experience is made up of actions of an Indexical
Dicent Sinsign - with no immediate contact with 3rdness. That is -my
point is that these interactions exist and must be dealt with just
'as they are' - without further linkage to 3rdness.
6] I have a problem with your separation of Matter and Form - but
won't get into a debate with you about this. Aristotle, to my mind,
settled it long ago.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
