Mike, list -
Thanks for your supportive comments. I'll try to clear up some
points.
1] When I say that a degenerate mode of Thirdness is operating, I
don't mean that it excludes - within the whole triad - the other
modes. For example, with the bird beak - Let's say that the bird's
habits, which are stored in the Representamen node, are interacting
with the real environment. These interactions will be via the
relational interaction between the R and the DO. This interactional
mode will be in that 3-2 mode, which simply means that Mind is not
purely analytic but is absorbing, connecting with and 'thinking'
about the real physical data that is being inputted into the
organism. This new input will then trigger a rhematic response -
within the II - of novelty [Firstness] such that the DI can develop
as a new beak form in Secondness.
2] What I mean by 3-1 is that the Mind, when operating to form a new
instantiation [DI] is simply replicating its habits. This is Natural
Selection, where the dominant pattern is replicated in the
population. The Mind does not absorb or bother with any peripheral or
deviant information from the envt.
A single organism is in a mode of Secondness - with internal modes
operating in Firstness and Thirdness. But the HABITS that mould, that
form that organism are in Thirdness - general rules of organization.
These interactions are not dyadic. The WHOLE triadic format is
involved [IO-R-II] but, the Relation between the R and the O and the
R and the I, would be in a mode of either 3-2 or 3-1. Thirdness
operating within an indexical action; Thirdness operating within an
iconic action.
The Sign is always triadic: O-R-I
[Note - these are both explained in the paper I sent you].
3] You wrote:
*"I understand the Representamen as an action of
mediation." Hmmm, I really don't like this statement. To
use your notation, here is how I see it. O is a 2ns, I is a
3ns, and R is a 1ns. We know that Thirdness is often
characterized as mediation. Are you really trying to say
that the Representamen is in Thirdness??
The Representamen is the site of mediation between the input data
from the DO and the output interpretation of the II and DI. No - I
disagree that the external DO is in 2ns. It INCLUDES in its format,
matter moulded within, operating within - 1ns and 3ns. After all,
that external object exists as such within its own laws of
organization ]3ns]. No, the R is rarely in a mode of 1ns. That's only
within the most basic triad of a rhematic iconic qualisign. Take a
look at the ten classes of triadic models. 2.254 I think. You'll see
that 6 of the ten have the Representamen in Thirdness; 3 are in 2ns
and only one is in 1ns.
4] The nodal sites, i.e., the O, R and I are NOT the same as the
three categories. [I use the term 'mode' because Peirce used the term
'mode' in mode of being'. So- to say 'modal categories' isn't a
deviation from their meaning. ]. The three categories, as modes of
being, describe the Relations that, for example, the R has with the
O, or with the I. See 8.330.
5] I never deviate from the triad - that is, the dynamic semiosic
process is always triadic. Again, 3-2 and 3-1 are NOT dyadic
relations! It's not Thirdness interacting with something in Firstness
or with something in Secondness! It's degenerate Thirdness, which
simply means, for 3-2 that it's Thirdness that isn't pure and just
pure analytic Mind...but is Mind operating not just theoretically,
but, mixed with hard physical reality [Secondness]. And 3-1 isn't
pure thirdness which would be 3-3, but Thirdness operating with a
sense of shared iconic qualities. These genuine and degenerate forms
of Thirdness describe the nature of a Relation...the actual type or
mode of that interaction. So- you could have a R interacting with
some external O...but ..in a pure Thirdness relationship, which is
3-3 [Thirdness as Thirdness]...the interaction would be purely
analytical, purely rhetorical, symbolic. [That is a seed]. But...if
that interaction is more grounded in hard physical reality, then, the
Mind analysis focuses on the hard physical reality of that
Object.[That seed and my beak do not constructively physically
interact and I'd better do something about it].
I hope this helps a bit.
Edwina
On Thu 12/04/18 12:40 AM , Mike Bergman [email protected] sent:
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:
*"there is nothing in my [Edwina's] view that counters or
cannot be sustained within a Peircean analysis"
*"don't confine semiosis to the conceptual or human realm";
"include the physical-chemical and biological realms"
*"the Sign is . . . a relational dynamic process"
*I like the use of 'instantiations' to discuss Secondness
*I concur with the "DO-[IO-R-II]-DI" expansion of the Sign,
though once stated, continuing to drag along the DO and DI
just seems to complicate things a bit. In real simple terms,
DO and DI just affirm Peirce's standard mantra that truth is a
limit function, so our signs can only incompletely represent
the object and can only be incompletely understood
*I concur it is better practice to use "the term R or
Representamen to differentiate it from the Sign"
*I concur the Sign is "the triad set of Three Relations
[IO-R-II]"
*"semiosis is Relational; it is necessarily interactive and
dynamic"
*Your CP 8.328, 8.330 quotes of Peirce go without
saying.
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:
*"My view of semiosis is that it defines the basic
process of Mind-as-Matter in our universe." Yeah, I can see
that, and Peirce's use of mind and quasi-mind attempts to
define a realm for thought or the symbolic, but I think this
is not the metaphor I want to lead with, since there is such a
broad range of interpretation about 'mind' and I personally
think it is too easily anthropomorphized
*"I understand the Representamen as an action of
mediation." Hmmm, I really don't like this statement. To
use your notation, here is how I see it. O is a 2ns, I is a
3ns, and R is a 1ns. We know that Thirdness is often
characterized as mediation. Are you really trying to say
that the Representamen is in Thirdness??
*I don't really have a problem calling the 'universal
categories', the phrase most used I think by Peirce, 'modal
categories', but I'm not sure Peirce ever used this
phrasing. Further, in your own emphasis on the total of six
modes, note that O has two options, I has three options, and
R stands alone.
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.
Mike
On 4/11/2018 3:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica,
sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Mike - I sent a long response but it seems to have disappeared.
I'll try again.
First - I expect this response will be met with indifference or
sneers from the list but I maintain that there is nothing in my
view that counters or cannot be sustained within a Peircean
analysis.
My view of semiosis is that it defines the basic process of
Mind-as-Matter in our universe. That is, I don't confine
semiosis to the conceptual or human realm. I include the
physical-chemical and biological realms.
Therefore, my view of the Sign is that it is a relational
dynamic process, where Mind becomes Matter, as 'instantiations'
[which can last anywhere from a nanosecond to centuries] within
an ongoing interactiional triadic process. So, the Sign is a
crystal, a rock, a bacterium, an insect...and a word, a sentence
etc. AND - all of these 'instantiations' are interactive with
other 'instants' or Mind-as-Matter.
The basic Sign is a Set of Relations: DO-[IO-R-II]-DI... I add
the DO Relation to the basic triad because no Sign can exist as
isolate. I use the term R or Representamen to differentiate it
from the Sign, which I see as the triad set of Three
Relations [IO-R-II]. As we know, there need not be a DI, but,
most existent instances do produce a new form of matter/mind.
[See 4,536, 8.314-]. I understand the Representamen as an action
of mediation.
I understand, therefore, that this semiosis is Relational; it
is necessarily interactive and dynamic. How do the Relations
function? Within the modal categories. These categories are
modes of being, or organizations of Mind-as-Matter.
So, as Peirce outlines, "Firstness is the mode of being of that
which is such as it is, positively and without reference to
anything else.
Secondness is the mode of being..with respect to a second but
regardless of any third.
Thirdness is the mode of being ...bringing a second and third
in relation to each other'. 8.328.
But Peirce doesn't just use these three modes. He mixes them up
to create a total of six - and this mixture enables pragmatic or
'factual' adaptation.
So- genuine Secondness functions by setting up Relations that
are brute interactions; 'one thing acting upon another' 8.330.
1.380] But there is a 'degenerate Secondness' where the
Relational interaction involves a shared quality between the two
[8.330, 2.91].
And pure or genuine Thirdness is an action of the Mind only -
aspatial and atemporal and alienated from physical reality and
feelings. But, if you add in Secondness to it, such that the
relation is 3-2, then, the mental interaction includes a
physical contact with existential reality. [2.92, 8.330] And if
you insert Firstness into the mental interaction, then, the
relationship is one of similarity, iconicity.
--------------------
Examples include, in the biological realm, of 3-2, where an
organism, operating within its habits of organization [3rdness]
will interact, informationally, via Secondness with the
external world - to inform itself about these physical
realities, such that a bird, for example, will adapt its beak to
better deal with novel seed forms. A bacterium will adapt to
antibiotics.
An example of 3-1, in the biological realm, would be where
organisms reproduce according to the dominant model [iconicity].
----------------
You referred to word examples. I'm not sure if you refer to the
conceptual realm. I'd give as an example, in this realm, of 3-2
where a belief system will relate to external existential
reality -and so, will adapt. An example of 3-1 is an iconic
mindset [see Peirce's a priori fixation of belief] where beliefs
are held due to the dominant population.
Now - I hope that this attempt gets through!
Edwina
On Wed 11/04/18 3:13 AM , Mike Bergman
[email protected] sent:
Hi Edwina,
You stated in the 'General Agreement' thread:
But Thirdness is complex with three
types [3-3, 3-2, 3-1] and this enables information
exchange with the environment [via 3-2] rather than simple
repetition of type [3-1]. So, Firstness is involved to
enable adaptation, and Secondness is involved to enable
direct contact with the local environmental realities. The
result - is an adapted insect.
I like the adaptive insect portion, but, honestly, I'd
like you to present word examples of what you mean by
these complexes of types. For example, please explain
'3-1' or via '3-2'. Are these predicates? That seems to
be central to your argument. And, are predicates in
Thirdness?
Best, Mike
Edwina
-- __________________________________________ 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 [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 .
