Edwina, List: Your questions about "novelty, deviation, adaptation and evolution" are legitimate and will need to be answered eventually; but trying to do so now would be putting the cart well before the horse, since the model itself is still a work in progress.
Jon S. On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 12:34 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon- > > It is irrelevant and not a key difference as to whether or not I developed > my model years ago and you are just developing yours. It is irrelevant > whether or not my 'mind is made up'. > > The questions I have asked of you - that your model doesn't seem to allow > for the capacities of novelty, deviation, adaptation and evolution - all > of which are vital to Peircean semiosis - have not been answered. > > Edwina > > On Sat 31/03/18 1:02 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent: > > Edwina, List: > > Where have I claimed that my current model is anything other than my > "personal interpretation of Peirce"? Likewise, your model is your "personal > interpretation of Peirce." You think that mine is flawed, and I think that > yours is flawed. > > A key difference is that you largely developed your comprehensive model > years ago, and are (apparently) absolutely convinced of its validity; while > I am still in the process of developing mine, and am completely undecided > as to whether it will ultimately prove to be workable or turn out to be an > exercise in barking up the wrong tree. As such, I am not yet willing to > give up on it, just because you (and/or others) "have problems with it." > It is not finished yet, so of course there are problems with it! > > That is why it is also a red herring to throw out words like "theistic" > and "Hegelian." I have not said one word about God in any recent thread, > and I do not know enough about Hegel to detect whether anything that I have > written lately echoes his ideas. Such comments suggest to me that your > mind is already made up, and you are just looking for reasons to reject > what I am proposing out of hand, rather than engaging with it in good > faith. I concede that your objections might very well turn out to be > accurate, but just asserting them over and over is not going to persuade me > of that. > > Jon S. > > On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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] >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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, USA >>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 9:23 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >>>> 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 <[email protected] >>>> > 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 >>>>> >>>>
----------------------------- 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 .
