BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list

        To reject the use of natural language in the study and use of Peirce
confines this study and use to essentially an isolate cult of
specialists. No-one else can explore Peirce because they will be
jumped on for 'misuse of terms'. And so- we see how Peircean analysis
becomes confined and owned by almost an elite set of people who reject
open exploration of Peircean semiosic research unless and until the
discussants 'use the correct words'. It becomes almost an insider's
cult, where one focuses on which term to use, the year it was
introduced, the exact references and so on. That's not what I like to
see. And I don't think you want to see that either.

        There ARE indeed specific technical terms that one has to learn
within Peircean research - such as the categories [Firstness,
Secondness, Thirdness and the terms of the parts of the semiosic
action [DO, IO, R, II, DI, FI]…..But to insist that the words we
use in basic common natural language cannot be used  - because in
Peirce, they have strictly singular meanings, is, in my view, not
merely isolationist but inhibits the study and use of Peirce.

        After all - to say that the word 'action' cannot be used when one is
exploring the pragmatics of Thirdness is, I think, unreasonable. It
denies the FACT that 'something is going on' - and the basic
'something going on' IS an action! A particular action within the
format of Thirdness. JAS informed us that 'what is going on in
Thirdness' is a 'manifestation'. But, in natural language, a
manifestation is AN ACTION!. And yet, we are told that we cannot use
the term.

        I also reject the isolation of the term 'semiotics' to purely
intellectual discussions of logic and metaphysica - The field of
semiosis in my view INCLUDES all the pragmatic examination of its
functionality in economics, biology, physics, societal. I disagree
that if one uses the term 'semiotics', then, examples and analysis is
confined to the purely intellectual and not its pragmatic
functionality.

        My view is that if someone has a particular personal and research
focus on terminology - fine, that's his focus. But to insist that one
cannot use natural language in the study of Peirce and must instead
move natural language out of its meaning and into 'Peircean-only'
usage inhibits and prevents the use of Peirce in the broader study of
what is going on in the world. I repeat - I consider the Peircean
semiosic framework a powerful analytic tool for examining what is
going on - in the real world - and I think that a 'cultlike hold on
language' prevents many people from using that framework.

        Edwina
 On Thu 09/08/18 11:30 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
 Mike, Jon, Edwina, List,
 Mike wrote: "Are not 'binding' and 'sense' expressions of action,
both Peirce's words for Thirdness? There are many ways to interpret
natural language, including what is meant by the word 'action'." 
 Please offer some context and some textual support for your notion
that 'binding' and 'sense' are employed as expressions of action in
any of Peirce's discussion of 3ns. I think that this is not only
highly unlikely, but actually would contradict most everything he had
to say about not only 3ns but also 2ns.
 Whatever you might mean by "natural language" in the present
context, we are concerned here with technical scientific terminology,
specifically Peirce's in consideration of his three universal
categories. Action-Reaction and Interaction are concepts clearly
connected in Peirce's phenomenology and semeiotic to 2ns, so that it
seems peculiarly obdurate to suggest that they are not, that they may
be associated in any integral way with 3ns. You will certainly have to
offer more support for your comment than your mere assertion that it
is so. 
 Best,
 Gary
  Gary Richmond
 Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York718 482-5690
 On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 7:41 PM, Mike Bergman  wrote:
        Jon, Edwina, List,     

        Are not 'binding' and 'sense' expressions of action, both        
Peirce's words for Thirdness? There are many ways to interpret       
 natural language, including what is meant by the word 'action'.     

        Mike
     On 8/9/2018 6:08 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt       wrote:
                        Edwina, List:         
                             ET:  And Peirce referred to cognition,
to Thirdness, as             an action. Synthetic consciousness,
mediation, is not a             passive consciousness [which is 1ns]
but is active. 1.377/8                  
                  No, he did not; at least, certainly not in the
cited           passage.  In fact, this is a blatantly inaccurate
paraphrase           of it, so I will quote it in full.         
                             CSP:  It seems, then, that the true
categories of             consciousness are: first, feeling, the
consciousness which             can be included with an instant of
time, passive             consciousness of quality, without
recognition or analysis;             second, consciousness of an
interruption into the field of             consciousness, sense of
resistance, of an external fact, of             another something;
third, synthetic consciousness, binding             time together,
sense of learning, thought.                             If we accept
these [as] the fundamental elementary modes             of
consciousness, they afford a psychological explanation of            
the three logical conceptions of quality, relation, and            
synthesis or mediation. The conception of quality, which is          
  absolutely simple in itself and yet viewed in its relations         
   is seen to be full of variety, would arise whenever feeling        
    or the singular consciousness becomes prominent. The            
conception of relation comes from the dual consciousness or          
  sense of action and reaction. The conception of mediation           
 springs out of the plural consciousness or sense of            
learning. (CP 1.377-378; 1887-1888)                  
                  Peirce here did not characterize mediation as      
    "active," or even directly contrast "passive consciousness"       
   (1ns) with "synthetic consciousness" (3ns) so as to imply          
that the latter is active.  On the contrary, he also          
mentioned "consciousness of an interruption" (2ns), and then         
 went on to call it "dual consciousness or sense of action and        
  reaction."  In other words, it is clearly the latter type of        
  consciousness (2ns), rather than synthetic consciousness          
(3ns), that is properly described as active.         
                             ET:  Thirdness is in my understanding of
Peirce a dynamic             process, which is to say, an action.     
            
                  No.  For Peirce, anything "dynamic" is associated
with 2ns,           not 3ns.  This is intrinsic to his analysis of a
Sign as           having a Dynamic Object and producing Dynamic
Interpretants           by means of its actual Instances.         
                             ET:  As such, it mediates, it
synthesizes, it             generalizes. These are all actions -
powerful actions.                  
                  Again, no.  For Peirce, mediating, synthesizing,
and           generalizing are indeed powerful, but they are not
actions.            They are manifestations of 3ns, while actions are
always             and only manifestations of 2ns.  As Gary R. already
          pointed out, in Peirce's terminology, molding          
reactions is not an action; imparting a quality to          
reactions is not an action; and bringing things into          
relation with each other is not an action.         
                             CSP:  It is to be observed that a sign
has its being in             the power to bring about a determination
of a             Matter to a Form, not in an act of bringing it       
     about. There are several good arguments to show that this is     
       the case. Perhaps none of them is more conclusive than the     
       circumstance that there is no such act. For an act has a       
     Matter as its subject. It is the union of Matter and Form.       
     But a sign is not Matter. An act is individual. The sign         
   only exists in replicas. (NEM 4:300; 1904)                  
                  Finally, in my opinion--and, I believe, in         
 Peirce's--someone who is not interested in terminology is          
evidently not interested in making our ideas clear.           
Carefully selecting and defining the terms that we use to          
describe what is going on is not merely an academic exercise         
 for the seminar room, but pragmatically critical for          
understanding and discussing what is actually happening in the       
   real world.         
                             CSP:  Suffice it to say once more that
pragmatism is, in             itself ... merely a method of
ascertaining the meanings of             hard words and of abstract
concepts. All pragmatists of             whatsoever stripe will
cordially assent to that statement.             (CP 5.464, EP 2:400;
1907)                  
                  Regards,         
                                                                     
                          Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA      
              Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher,             
         Lutheran Layman                    
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2]                       -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [3]                                       
                                              
           On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:17 PM,             Edwina
Taborsky              wrote:
        JAS, list               

        And Peirce referred to cognition, to Thirdness, as an               
 action. Synthetic consciousness, mediation, is not a                
passive consciousness [which is 1ns] but is active.                
1.377/8               

        That is, semiosis as a process does not confine action              
  to dyadic act-react kinesis between two existential                
things. Thirdness is in my understanding of Peirce a                
dynamic process, which is to say, an action. As such, it             
   mediates, it synthesizes, it generalizes. These are all            
    actions - powerful actions.                

        "Not only will meaning always, more or less, in the                
long run mould reactions to itself, but it is only in                
doing so that its own being cosists. For this reason I                
call this element of the phenomenon or object of thought              
  the element of Thirdness. It is that which is what it is            
    by virtue of imparting a quality to reactions in the              
  future" 1.343.               

        "The third is that which is what it is owing to things              
  between which it mediates and which it brings into                
relation to each other" 1.356               

        This action, of bringing things into mutual                
relationships is a frequent description by Peirce, of                
Thirdness.                

        Now - to me, such is an action... A plural interaction              
  mediating and generating the commonalities among                
separate things               

        I am not sure if we should continue this discussion,                
since we both hold to different views and are probably                
boring the list.               

        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
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu [5] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu [6] with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/ [7]peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .


Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'m...@mkbergman.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'peirce-L@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'l...@list.iupui.edu\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to