Hi Edwina, List,
Thank you; I knew you would respond in a complete and thoughtful manner. (I also apologize to Frances for responding earlier in the thread and hijacking her more recent comment, since I first asked the question and had been formulating a response directly to Edwina.) So, Edwina, there is much I agree wholeheartedly with in your response, which should not be met with indifference or sneers because what we are really probing here is whether Peirce captured some fundamental essences of reality or not.General Agreement
I agree with all of these interpretations:
My Real Question
My real question relates to your earlier assertion that all three universal categories need not be involved in a relationship with Thirdness, for which you used the term "quasi-necessarily" and also presented your two examples of '3-2' and '3-1'.
For example, your '3-2' example of bird beaks evolving for new seed types can not occur without Firstness, the source of chance or variation. I really have no idea what you mean as an "example of 3-1, in the biological realm, would be where organisms reproduce according to the dominant model [iconicity]." Is not an organism a Secondness?
By virtue of describing the Sign as 'dynamical' and a 'process' I think you already concede that the Sign, any Sign, is triadic. Thus, while I see certain aspects of the universal categories as being more dominant in a given circumstance, which Peirce also clearly acknowledges in his ten-classification scheme, I do not believe any sign can be monadic or dyadic. A Sign is not synonymous with a relation, even though a "Sign is relational".
Some Ancillary Items
I'm not sure I agree with these characterizations, because they do not feel general enough, but are points I really don't want to dispute or get bogged down with:
So, in summary, I question whether 'dynamic processes' can ever be characterized as anything less than triadic. I guess I remain unconvinced that there are classes of interactions involving Thirdness that can be expressed solely as dyadic relations ('3-1', '3-2'). I can see the argument for a dominant mode (1ns or 2ns), but ones that still require participation by all three of the universal categories.
On 4/11/2018 3:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Michael K. Bergman Cognonto Corporation 319.621.5225 skype:michaelkbergman http://cognonto.com http://mkbergman.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman __________________________________________
----------------------------- 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 .