Mike B., List: MB: My last point spoke specifically to the mischaracterization with the strawman argument.
What strawman argument? From my perspective, stating that "there are triadic forms of action that reside in 3ns" is a clear example of associating action with 3ns, rather than 2ns--which is precisely my concern. MB: You apparently do not accept the distinction of a triadic action, which I see as a concept clearly qualified by Peirce. That makes at least two List participants who have incorrectly perceived me this way, so I must not be expressing myself well. Again, I do not deny that there are "triadic actions"; I simply advocate properly associating their *action *aspects (existence, particularity, occurrence) with 2ns, and only their *triadic* aspects (purpose, lawfulness, mediation) with 3ns. Semiosis is a paradigmatic example--Signs as *Types* cannot and do not *act *on, *react *to, or *interact *with anything; only their Instances as *Tokens* do so. Where there is no Sign-*Replica *(Existent), there is no *Dynamic *Interpretant (actual effect). Regards, Jon S. On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Mike Bergman <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, List, > > I know you find it problematic, you should inspect your premise closely, > but that was not my point. My last point spoke specifically to the > mischaracterization with the strawman argument. > > As for your current problematic point, please return to my start to this > thread where two or three of Peirce's quotes specifically note there are > triadic actions or triadic relations that can not be analyzed or decomposed > solely to dyadic ones. I think it was this earlier point that caused me to > say 'Bingo' in one of our earlier threads. Not all actions can be > decomposed to 2ns. For me, these are the really fascinating ones (as they > were for Peirce). > > You apparently do not accept the distinction of a triadic action, which I > see as a concept clearly qualified by Peirce. I have been keen to comment > upon triadic action because that is the realm of representation, and my > field of expertise is knowledge representation. There are many insights to > be gleaned from triadic action in KR. I hope to comment further on these > insights as they may arise. > > Mike > > On 8/15/2018 10:34 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > >> Mike B., List: >> >> MB: ... there are triadic forms of action that reside in 3ns. >> >> Respectfully, this is exactly the kind of statement that I still find >> problematic. The /action /itself never "resides in 3ns," but in 2ns. Only >> the /triadic /aspect--purpose, lawfulness, mediation--"resides in 3ns." >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/Jo >> nAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSch >> midt> >> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Mike Bergman <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Jon, List, >> >> To my knowledge: >> >> My concern remains that associating action/reaction/interaction >> with 3ns, rather than 2ns, fosters a fundamental >> misunderstanding of Peirce's Categories, and thus his entire >> philosophical system. >> >> no one on these threads (specifically Edwina, myself, or Stephen) >> has made the assertion that 'action' is associated with "3ns, rather >> than 2ns". The point has been that 'action' as used by Peirce is >> often contextual, and there are triadic forms of action that reside >> in 3ns. I suggest dropping this strawman argument. >> >> Mike > >
----------------------------- 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 .
