Gary F., List: For me, that little living mouse is the residue of indeterminacy possessed by every Sign, as well as by every Object of a Sign.
Applied to a Seme, it is why a definition can only serve as an Immediate Interpretant that corresponds to an Immediate Object--a finite and somewhat arbitrary collection of characters that *vaguely *delimit what the Seme *possibly could* denote when serving as a *subject *of a Proposition expressed within a particular Sign System. The *continuous predicate* that marries multiple Semes into a Proposition--including any definition of any one of them--*mutually determines* all of them with respect to each other. Applied to any Object of a Sign, it is the basis for Peirce's extreme scholastic realism. "The Object of every Sign is an Individual, usually an Individual Collection of Individuals" (CP 8.181, EP 2:494; 1909); nevertheless, all individuals, including all Objects of Signs, are indeterminate and thus *general* to some degree--like the indefinite subject denoted by a Line of Identity, which always has room for more Spots of Teridentity to attach additional Spots for Semes. However, some Objects of Signs are *real*--"that which is such as it is whatever you or I or any generation of men may opine or otherwise think that it is" (R 498:32; 1906). Therefore, some generals are real. Applied to the Universe as a *semeiosic continuum*, an Argument consisting of true Propositions (facts) married by leading principles (logic of events), it reflects how Creation as "the development of Reason ... is going on today and never will be done" (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903). "If we are to explain the universe, we must assume that there was in the beginning a state of things in which there was nothing ... Utter indetermination" (EP 2:322; 1904). As "a vast representamen ... working out its conclusions in living realities" (CP 5.119, EP 2:193; 1903), the Universe continues being made *more determinate* by its Object; and as a "perfect sign," it "is perpetually being acted upon by its object, from which it is perpetually receiving the accretions of new signs, which bring it fresh energy, and also kindle energy that it already had, but which had lain dormant" (EP 2:545n25; 1906). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 7:45 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, list, > > Today I’d like to get back to your post of 31 March and follow up on some > of your comments in your reply to a prior post of mine — just to check my > impression that we’re singing the same song, as it were, in this thread: > > > > GF (earlier): The upshot of this, if I understand it, is that a *spot of > teridentity* may be regarded either as a rhema, which is a general > concept, or as a denoted *individual*, which (by definition) is *not* general, > but is identical to the three extremities of the graph of teridentity. > > JAS: I suggest that a *Spot* of Teridentity by itself is a Seme for the > continuous predicate, "_____ is identical to _____ and to _____"; while a > *Graph > *of Teridentity--a Spot of Teridentity with three loose-ended Lines of > Identity attached--represents the Proposition, "something is identical to > something and to something." > > GF (now): As Peirce says in the Prolegomena (CP 4.561), “Two lines cannot > abut upon the same peg other than a point of teridentity. (The purpose of > this rule is to force the recognition of the demonstrable logical truth > that the concept of teridentity is not mere identity. It is identity *and* > identity, but this “and” is a distinct concept, and is precisely that of > teridentity.)” This distinct concept is of course triadic, and is > indecomposable in a way analogous to Thirdness as a type of indecomposable > element of the phaneron. One thing that distinguishes it from the dyadic > line of identity is that by combining teridentities in various ways, we can > produce concepts of any -adicity (as illustrated on EP2:364). We might say > that teridentity is the root of plurality, or better, of *complexity* in > systems. > > My post previous to this one quoted Peirce’s statement that the line of > identity should be understood “to be *potentially* the graph of > *teridentity* by which means there always will virtually be at least one > loose end in every graph. In fact, it will not be truly a graph of > *teridentity* but a graph of indefinitely multiple identity” (CP 4.583). > One of Peirce’s drafts for that April 1906 address provides some background > thinking that leads up to this idea, and brings other logical, semiotic, > cognitive and metaphysical dimensions to the explanation of EGs: > > [[ In this system, every sign, and every complete part of a sign, that > is, everything which if it stood alone would be a sign, is of a nature to > be fully interpreted in a proposition. We shall see how that perfectly > provides for arguments and for names of all kinds. … The signs it > represents are signs presented as cognitive, that is as conformed to a real > object. By *real*, I always mean that which is such as it is whatever you > or I or any generation of men may opine or otherwise think that it is. > There must not be any confusion between reality and exteriority[:] that is > real which is as it is no matter what one may think *about it*. The > external is that which is as it is whatever one may think about *anything*. > No doubt there are grades of reality, meaning that objects of signs may > yield with more or less resistance to opinion or other representation. > According to the definition absolute resistance is essential to reality. > But an approach to reality, something that is not in the slightest of the > nature of pretense is found wherever an object of thought is sufficiently > obstinate to enable us to say, it has *not* these characters, but it > *does* have these. There is already a lesson in logic. Namely that one > may lay down the very best of definitions, going to the very heart of > things; and yet there will be, as it were, a little living mouse of a > quasi-exception which will find or make a hole to get in when all seemed > hermetically closed. This mouse will not be a mere pest to be got rid of > and forgotten. It will be a fellow being to be remembered and to be > appraised. ] MS 498, Pietarinen transcription published in *Synthese* > (2015) ] > > That little living mouse is, for me anyway, another metaphor for the “at > least one loose end in every graph, and for the mode of being represented > in EGs by the *potential* for the line of identity to be a graph of > teridentity or multiple identity. Reality in logic and metaphysics is > primarily a matter of “resistance” (Secondness), but *cognitive* reality > is always a matter of Thirdness — Thirdness crucially *involving* > Secondness but allowing for *degrees* of reality. > > There’s much more to say about your March 31 post, Jon (and those which > followed it), but that’s all I have time for right now. > > Gary f. >
----------------------------- 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 .
