Jon -- If you had a ten-year-old wondering about a problem -- say dealing with a teacher -- and you felt Peirce was relevant to address it, can you say language he or she would understand the steps to a possible solution? I assume you might believe there is a reason for thinking there are three steps. That the problem is the mater you are addressing 1, that some options for a response might be noted 2 -- what would the third step either be or lead to?
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/JonAlanSchmidt> >>> >>> 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
