Jon: Excellent post!
Cheers Jerry > On Mar 22, 2019, at 10:17 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > John, List: > > The new thread title is alarmist hyperbole, and the post below--after > offering the kind of non-apology apology > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology> that is all too common in > our society today--simply doubles down on the fundamental misunderstanding of > Peirce's entire Speculative Grammar that I have pointed out at least twice > before. In fact, I already directly addressed most of the repeated comments > this morning > <https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2019-03/msg00145.html>, so why not > deal with the substance of those responses? As for the new summary at the > very bottom ... > > JFS: (1) A Seme is a widening of Rheme (Predicate) to include nonsymbolic > percepts. > > A Seme is a widening of Term (subject or predicate) to include not only > Symbols, but also Icons and Indices; in fact, it explicitly encompasses > "anything which serves for any purpose as a substitute for an object of which > it is, in some sense, a representative or Sign" (CP 4.538; 1906). Peirce > neither stated nor implied any limitation whatsoever on the nature of the > Object that a Seme can represent. > > JFS: (2) But the word 'subject' is ambiguous because it could mean either a > predicate (pure possibility) or a grammatical subject (something actual). > > There is no ambiguity when we focus on the parts of a proposition, since > "every proposition contains a Subject and a Predicate" (CP 2.316, EP 2:279; > 1903). The difference between them is not that a subject is "something > actual," while a predicate is "pure possibility." Rather, each subject > denotes an Object, which must already be known to an interpreter from > previous Collateral Experience; while the predicate signifies the > Interpretant, which is the only information that the proposition itself can > convey--the relation among its subjects. > > JFS: (3) Allowing a Seme to refer to something actual would break the > distinction between Firstness and Secondness. That would contradict Peirce's > entire system of semeiotic. > > Nonsense. Again, according to Peirce's own definition, anything which serves > for any purpose as a substitute for any object--including something > actual--is a Seme. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 6:15 PM John F Sowa <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Edwina, Jon AS, Gary R, and List, > > I apologize if anyone was offended by the release of excerpts from > offline notes. My only excuse is that I sent it at 2:10 AM. The > next morning, I was surprised that I had hit SEND. > > The conclusion of that note is far more important than a debating > point. I wanted to warn anybody who was misled by the ambiguity > in the word 'subject'. The conclusion that a Seme could be a > subject is not just false, it is horribly false. It contradicts > and undermines Peirce's entire system of semeiotic. > > That would be a terrible claim for Peirce List to publicize. > To emphasize why that claim is false, I'm repeating the summary > of the reasoning that shows the contradiction. See below. > > John > ______________________________________________________________________ > > The derivation of the contradiction can be summarized in three points: > > 1. In CP 4.538, Peirce said that the triad Term, Proposition, Argument > had to be widened, and he proposed a new triad Seme, Pheme, Delome. > In 4.539, he discussed issues about percepts, which showed why the > category Seme needed to go beyond purely symbolic Terms. > > 2. But Jon claimed that Subject would be an appropriate widening. > He was misled by an ambiguity in the word 'subject': as a logical > term, it's a predicate, which is a Rheme, which is a Seme; but as > a grammatical subject, it would refer to something actual. > > 3. But that triad would contradict the foundation of Peirce's system. > A Seme is a First. It represents a pure possibility, such as a > Mark/Tone, Potisign, or Qualisign. But a grammatical subject in > language refers to something that exists. It's a Second, such > as a Token, Actisign, or Sinsign. To claim that a grammatical > subject could be a Seme would mix Firstness and Secondness, > and create a contradiction in the center of the system. > > The reason why Jon was misled is that the word 'subject' without > any qualifiers is ambiguous. A Term in Aristotle's syllogisms may > be used in either subject position or predicate position. As a > Term without an indexical word in front (a, some, any, every...), > it would be a predicate, which is a Seme. > > But a grammatical subject refers to something that exists (or is > assumed to exist) in the Universe of Discourse. That kind of > subject would be a Second. It would be a Pheme, not a Seme. > > That's all there is to the debate. But it touches on many abstract > issues about Peirce's logic and semeiotic. That complexity obscured > the threat to destroy the entire system. > > Summary: The only thing to remember is three brief points. > > (1) A Seme is a widening of Rheme (Predicate) to include nonsymbolic > percepts. (2) But the word 'subject' is ambiguous because it could > mean either a predicate (pure possibility) or a grammatical subject > (something actual). (3) Allowing a Seme to refer to something actual > would break the distinction between Firstness and Secondness. > > That would contradict Peirce's entire system of semeiotic. > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
