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!
On Wed 11/04/18 3:13 AM , Mike Bergman m...@mkbergman.com sent:
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?
----------------------------- 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