BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
JAS, list
This is what is logically called a circular argument and thus, is
invalid. That is, consider the debate:
-------------------------------------------------------------
JFS: But the existence of quasi-minds at the level of bacteria is
sufficient for the universe to perceive and interpret itself.
JAS: Sure, but it is not sufficient for the Universe to determine
itself; an external Object is necessary to determine
it.-------------------------------------------------------------ET:
What JAS is doing, I suggest, is setting up a circular argument,
where he has the Universe as a separate entity, a Sign, in
interaction with an External Object. Now - this External Object
MUST, according to Peirce, also be a Sign...and so...logically, it
too must require its own External Object...which is also a
Sign...which also requires its own External Object...and so on.
-----------------My view is that Peirce has at no time set up the
Universe as a separate, bounded entity - i.e., with spatial and/or
temporal horizons. Therefore - there is NO external Object.
Furthermore, his outline of the necessary function of the three
categories of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns, provides ALL the generative actions
required for the full semiosic functioning of this universe. That is,
as John Sowa points out," the existence of quasi-minds at the level of
bacteria is sufficient for the universe to perceive and interpret
itself."
Again, these quasi-minds function within the three categories -
nothing else is needed for the semiosic functioning of the universe.
And again - all we are doing is quoting the same passages to each
other, and interpreting them in different ways. I suggest we allow
each other the 'grace' to do this - rather than insisting that one or
the other is 'right' - and the other is a 'misinterpretation.
Edwina
On Thu 16/05/19 11:27 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
John, List:
JFS: But any mark (or tone) may be interpreted in many different
ways as a token of many different types.
Whether or how any particular Instance of a Sign is actually
interpreted has no bearing whatsoever on what its Dynamic Object is.
Different Dynamic Interpretants can correspond to different Instances
of different Signs, but the Dynamic Object is never affected by
those various Signs and Interpretants.
CSP: In a word, whether physically, rationally, or otherwise,
directly or indirectly, its Object, as agent, acts upon the sign, as
patient. (R 283:109; 1905)
CSP: In its relation to the Object, the Sign is passive; that is to
say, its correspondence to the Object is brought about by an effect
upon the Sign, the Object remaining unaffected. (EP 2:544n22; 1906).
CSP: But by the Object Itself, or the Real Object, we mean the
Object insofar as it is not modified by being represented. (R 793:14;
1906)
Moreover, since we are fallible, we routinely misinterpret Signs;
i.e., the Dynamic Interpretant is not always consistent with the
Final Interpretant, "that which would finally be decided to be the
true interpretation if consideration of the matter were carried so
far that an ultimate opinion were reached" (CP 8.184, EP 2:496; 1909
Feb 26).
JFS: R 599 does not say or imply that the thing that produces the
mark is distinct from the object of the token, as it is interpreted.
Okay, but Peirce did state explicitly in various other places that
every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself. For example
...
CSP: The object is something external to and independent of the
sign which determines in the sign an element corresponding to itself
... (R 145s:27; 1905)
CSP: ... [a sign] must be determined to correspond, according to
some principle, and by some species of causation, with something
else, called its Object. (R 283:109; 1905)
CSP: A Sign is a Cognizable that, on the one hand, is so determined
(i.e., specialized, bestimmt) by something other than itself, called
its Object ... (CP 8.177, EP 2:492; 1909)
CSP: I start by defining what I mean by a Sign. It is something
determined by something else, its Object ... (EP 2:500; 1909)
This aspect is essential to the genuine triadic relations of
representation (of a second correlate for a third correlate) and
mediation (between two other correlates). Again, everything is a
Sign of itself in a trivial sense, but something that is not
determined by an Object other than itself is not properly called a
Sign.
JFS: But the existence of quasi-minds at the level of bacteria is
sufficient for the universe to perceive and interpret itself.
Sure, but it is not sufficient for the Universe to determine
itself; an external Object is necessary to determine it.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 8:45 AM John F Sowa wrote:
On 5/15/2019 4:59 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
> All I can say is to reiterate that this does not represent
> Peirce's view: for him the rock /is/ the Object of the icon
> whatever physio-psychologically is going on in the interpreter;
> it is, in a word, a matter of logic not of psychology. To see
> it otherwise is, in my view, a step in the direction of
undermining
> his entire semeiotic.
No.
CSP
> What is a sign? It is anything which in any way represents an
object.
> (R 599, 1902)
Yes. But any mark (or tone) may be interpreted in many different
ways
as a token of many different types. If you see something on a roof,
you might interpret as (1) a metallic object; (2) a sculpture of a
rooster standing on an arrow; (3) a weather vane; (4) a sign of the
direction of the wind...
In (1), the mark is a sign of its own existence in a particular
location. In (2), it is also a sign of itself with the additional
information about its shape. In (3), it is a sign of itself with a
recognition of its purpose. In (4), it is interpreted as all of the
above plus a recognition of the phenomena it was designed to show.
This is lesson #1 of semeiotic. It's the foundation for everything
else. R 599 does not say or imply that the thing that produces the
mark is distinct from the object of the token, as it is interpreted.
In fact, the overwhelming majority of the marks that we interpret
every instant of our lives represent things that produce the marks.
Re the universe as "a perfusion of signs": The evidence for the
existence and nature of bacteria is clearer and more convincing
than the evidence for God. I won't make any claims, pro or con,
about God. But the existence of quasi-minds at the level of
bacteria
is sufficient for the universe to perceive and interpret itself.
Other hypotheses are interesting. But they are avoidable.
John
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
