List:
'Continuous semiosis' is basic Peirce. His analysis is that the
universe is a 'continuous process of Mind' - which functions within
the semiosic triad and the three categories.
But I think it's a romantic error to focus on any one of the
categories as 'the ultimate answer'. It is important that we CAN
separate them and analyze their short-term functionality.
The 'mechanical analysis, which focuses only on the discrete
entities within Secondness has brought us great empirical results,
where we can specifically say that 'this microbe' causes 'that
disease'. And certainly, we must acknowledge that we rely on such
direct and individual mechanical interactions when we step into a
plane.
The 'universalist' analysis, which focuses only on the generative
force of habit of Thirdness, brings us stability and continuity -
but, is blind to both the individual as its own unique identity and
also to the actual need to differentiate from these habits, an action
which is found only within the individual.
The 'chance' analysis, which focuses only on the peripheral
randomness of Firstness, brings us the freedom to deviate from habit
and from the constraints of the boundaries of Secondness.
Peirce was quite clear that his analytic framework - requires all
three. After all, semiosis, as a generative force of continuous, even
expanding, Mind, cannot even function without being articulated into
both the stability-inducing habits of Thirdness and the individual
existences of Secondness. And - it also requires the ability to
'unlock' both Thirdness and Secondness - within the role of
Firstness.
Edwina
On Sat 12/01/19 3:46 PM , Martin Kettelhut mkettel...@msn.com sent:
Jon and list,
I can’t hide my thrill reading your “musings.” Replanting our
thinking and behavior in the deeper context of continuous
semiosis—recognizing the undifferentiated in difference--allows for
“growth” of the sign at a point in human development when none of
our critiques, analyses or structures do.
Imagine shifting the current conversation from the paradoxes of
zero-sum economic policies (focused on discreet possessions) to the
more fundamental reality of the continuous environment in which those
possessions are claimed.
Imagine philosophy--queen of the sciences--which is asphyxiating on
individualist logic (by discounting generals, trying to name the
smallest chunk of reality, deducing truth from language), instead
recognizing the implicate order (Bohm) in any discreet object of
attention.
Imagine seeing yourself--your identity—no longer as a paradox of
determining influences versus free-will autonomy, but instead as both
cause and effect of your life.
Imagine the experience art no longer as appreciating the
distinctness of a work, but as learning how life dances with the
infinite determinability of semiotic continuity.
Thank you, Jon, for breathing life back into the day! Martin W.
Kettelhut - Longmont CO, USA Professional Coach, Doctor of
Philosophy, Kashmir Shaivist ListeningIsTheKey.com [1]
On Jan 9, 2019, at 10:01 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
List:
I have been musing recently on the well-known remark by Peirce that
"just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that motion is in a
body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that thoughts
are in us" (CP 5.289n1, EP 1:42n1; 1868). He also asserted in the
same series of articles that "all thought is in signs" (CP 5.253, EP
1:24; 1868), so by substitution we ought to say that our individual
(Quasi-)minds are in semiosis, and not that signs are in our
individual (Quasi-)minds.
As Peirce recognized, despite not having the benefit of Einstein's
insights, Zeno's famous paradoxes are dissolved by understanding
continuous motion through space-time as a more fundamental reality
than discrete positions in space and/or moments in time. We
arbitrarily mark the latter to facilitate measurement and
calculation for particular purposes, but space is not composed of
points and time is not composed of instants.
Likewise, I suggest that semiosis is continuous, and we arbitrarily
isolate discrete signs--or rather, Instances of Signs--to facilitate
analysis for particular purposes. We can say that a Dynamic Object
determines a Token of a Type to determine a Dynamic Interpretant in
an individual (Quasi-)mind, treating this as an actual event
"occurring just when and where it does" (CP 4.537; 1906).
Nevertheless, the Type is not composed of its Tokens.
Moreover, every Instance contributes to the Sign's Informed Breadth
by adding that Token's Dynamic Object; as Peirce put it, "Breadth
refers to the Object, which occasions the use of the sign" (R
200:E87; 1908). Nevertheless, this collection could never amount to
the Sign's Substantial Breadth, which (I have argued) corresponds to
its General Object. In other words, the Sign (as a Type) and its
General Object are both continuous, while each Instance (as a Token)
and its Dynamic Object (even if it includes multiple items) are both
discrete.
In fact, it seems to me that a necessary condition for a Token to
be an Instance of a Type is that the Token's Dynamic Object must
likewise be an instantiation of the Type's General Object. When I
pick something up and say out loud, "This is a vase," the word
"vase" that I pronounce is an actual constituent of the real
continuum of all potential Tokens of the corresponding Type, which
could be in any spoken or written language or other Sign System; and
I am asserting that what I now hold in my hands is an actual
constituent of the real continuum of all potential vases.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer,
Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[4]
-----------------------------
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/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [7] .
Links:
------
[1] http://ListeningIsTheKey.com
[2] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[3] http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[5] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[6] http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(
[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 .
