Gary F., List: Just a few quick responses to some of your comments over the last couple of days.
GF: I hesitated over your statement that “a definition can only serve as an Immediate Interpretant,” because I don’t think that applies to a term defined for use in pure mathematics ... Yes, I had in mind mainly linguistic Semes that purport to represent real Objects. A definition in pure mathematics is more of a hypothetical stipulation GF: But it took me a while to recognize that the *absence* of lines is also a mode of connection, as Peirce says above, and that both of these are “degenerate Secundan,” i.e. symmetrical dyadic relations in which there is no *reaction* of one correlate upon the other where one is relatively active and the other relatively passive. I agree that neither correlate is active or passive with respect to the other--that is what makes these relations *symmetrical *rather than *asymmetric*--but I think that it would be misleading to say on this basis that there is no *reaction *between them *at all*. On the contrary, coexistence is precisely a form of reaction--"*existence* is that mode of being which consists in the resultant genuine dyadic relation of a strict individual with all the other such individuals of the same universe" (CP 6.336; 1908). GF: The iconicity of EGs avoids such verbal inconsistency by minimizing the use of words; but the system only works as a representation of Thought if we recognize *the absence of lines* as a *mode of connection*. The system appears to involve *invisible icons*! I suggest that the Icons in question are invisible because their *Objects *are likewise invisible; i.e., invisibility is one of the respects in which the absence of lines *resembles *the mode of connection that constitutes coexistence. Recall that the blank Phemic Sheet represents "all that is tacitly taken for granted between the Graphist and Interpreter, from the outset of their discussion" (CP 4.553; 1906). That which is taken for granted--like coexistence as a relation that *everything *in the Universe has with *everything else* in the Universe--is invisible, unless and until we deliberately attend to it. GF: But you are quite right to point out that this usage of “empirical” is “a much broader notion of the term than often is used by classical British empiricists as well as contemporary empiricists of a more analytical orientation.” It is also much broader than the usage of Comte and the Positivists. This is essentially the thesis of Aaron Bruce Wilson's book, *Peirce's Empiricism: Its Roots and Its Originality*, which I recently reread. It is quite informative as far as tracing the historical and philosophical background against which Peirce was operating. Unfortunately, in my view Wilson makes some rather fundamental errors when it comes to Peirce's Semeiotic, most notably in his treatment of the Immediate Object. Regards Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
----------------------------- 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 .
