Dear list,
JAS said: · Major premiss: Every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself. · Minor premiss: The entire Universe is a Sign. · Conclusion: The entire Universe is determined by an Object other than itself. I do then add, "And this we call God," So then: · Major premiss: Every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself. · Minor premiss: I do then add, “And this we call God” is that Sign · Conclusion: I determine that Object other than itself Major: Object other than itself Minor: I Middle: Sign Is that right? https://www.npr.org/2019/05/15/723686017/new-tell-them-i-am-podcast-explores-lives-of-muslims-through-small-defining-mome REZA ASLAN: The voice quite famously says... EUCEPH: It says something really unexpected. ASLAN: You can tell them that I am I am. EUCEPH: It says Yahweh. ASLAN: That's just a Hebrew word that means I am, I was, I will be. EUCEPH: Yahweh is not a name. ASLAN: The deity didn't say, tell them I am Yahweh. That's not what he said. He said, tell them I am. EUCEPH: So I read this passage of the Bible when I was 16. I remember reading it and just being so surprised and struck by that line and the fact that God, an entity that we're constantly trying to define and understand, refuses to be categorized. And it kind of gave me permission as a human being to also let go of labels and to transcend category. .. And as we started discussing the idea, we kind of came to the conclusion that it should actually be that whole phrase, tell them I am, because it embodies the struggle of being a person who is constantly being categorized and who is desperately trying to take control of their own narrative.. With best wishes, Jerry R On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:22 PM <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > John, in your scenario of “seeing something on a roof,” it’s not clear > what your term “mark” refers to. If we assume that it refers to the first > sign class in the mark/token/type trichotomy, or a qualisign (as he called > it in 1903), your explanation makes no sense: > > 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. > > > > For (1), you say that the mark is a sign of the existence of a metallic > object in a particular location. But it would take an index to perform that > semiotic function, and an index cannot be a mark (or tone). You *also* > say it’s a “sign of its own existence”, which can only mean that the mark > itself is a metallic object. But obviously the *image* you experience is > not a metallic object — I hope you don’t have a metallic object wither in > your eye or in your brain — but a *sign* of an *object other than* the > the sign. As for 2, 3 and 4, none of those could be interpretants of a > *mark*. If this is lesson #1 of semeiotic, it can’t be Peirce’s semeiotic. > > > > Gary f. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> > Sent: 16-May-19 09:46 > To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited > > > > 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 >
----------------------------- 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 .
