BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
Again, I think one can get entrapped in the differentiation between
a Representamen, understood as the mediating node of the triad of
O-R-I and the Sign, understood as the full triad - AND - the use of
the term 'sign' to refer only to the mediating Representamen.
Peirce's comment is that 'the universe is a vast representamen, a
great symbol of God's purpose, working out its conclusions in living
realities" 5.119....and goes on to further define the Universe as 'an
argument' [5.119] and "The Universe as an argument is necessarily a
great work of art, a great poem" 5.119
My reading of the above is that the Universe is most certainly not
'just' the mediative node of the Representamen in the triad of O-R-I,
for as I've said, the Representamen has no existentiality of its own
but operates within a triad - but the Universe is - as he states, as
a whole - an Argument, composed of all three nodes of the
Object-Representamen-Interpretant within a mode of Thirdness, i.e., a
rational process of Mind interacting with Objects [which are also
functioning in their own semiosic triads] and producing
Interpretants...which become Objects and so on. Within this vast
Argument, all the other classes of semiosis are operating.
Therefore, the Universe is self-organizing; it has no boundaries or
horizons and there is nothing 'outside of it'. Therefore, I don't
agree with the view of JAS that the Universe has boundaries and that
God is a reality outside of it.
Furthermore, I question the idea that, so to speak, 'if there is a
Sign connected to another Sign, then all Signs are 'as one'. [Please
provide a reference].
Most certainly, the reality of the process of semiosis is 'the
tendency to take habits' i.e., to generalize, which leads to the
result that all instances of this generalized law are somewhat
similar Signs [triads]. So, all members of one species are 'somewhat
similar'. BUT, at the same time, the facts of Nature are that another
reality of the process of semiosis is the action of instantiation
where the individual 'token' of the 'type' emerges in its haecceity
of 'here and now'. AND another reality of the process of semiosis is
the function of Firstness with its deviation from the law.
That is - I question the ability of the Universe to actually reduce
its complexity to ONE Sign - given that the Universe operates within
not one categorial mode/universe [ie of Thirdness] but within THREE
modes: Firstness, Secondness AND Thirdness. Therefore - I don't see
how the Universe, which is a constant process of generating triadic
Signs [O-R-I] can reduce this process to either the Representamen [
as JAS seems to suggest with its need for the external Object] or
even, to one triadic Sign.
Edwina
On Sat 18/05/19 2:16 PM , Gary Richmond [email protected]
sent:
Jon, Edwina, List,
Jon wrote:
JAS: Again, besides stating plainly that "the Universe is a vast
representamen" . . . Peirce affirmed that "if any signs are
connected, no matter how, the resulting system constitutes one sign"
. . . calling this a theorem of the science of semeiotics. Any
Argument is a Sign, and it is also a continuous process of semeiosis;
the two labels are not mutually exclusive.
Let's also recall that Peirce would refer to such things as a
complete play (say, Hamlet) or a novel (say, War and Peace) as a
Symbol. I have little doubt that he would see even the 11 volumes of
Will and Ariel Durant's Story of Civilization taken together as a
single Symbol and it many translations into languages other than
English as replicas of that Symbol.
Indeed, Peirce would write that even an entire language, including
its modifications and evolution over centuries is a Symbol. The
Universe as Symbol is for Peirce but, shall we say, the ultimate
Symbol, and the ultimate "continuous process of semeiosis" (JAS).
Best,
Gary R
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
[1]
Virus-free. www.avg.com
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:04 PM Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Edwina, List:
ET: I deny that the Universe is a Sign. My view is that Peirce did
not say that the "Universe is a Sign'.
I sincerely appreciate this straightforward acknowledgement, and I
understand your position while continuing to disagree with it.
Again, besides stating plainly that "the Universe is a vast
representamen" (which you interpret as metaphorical), Peirce affirmed
that "if any signs are connected, no matter how, the resulting system
constitutes one sign" (emphasis mine), calling this a theorem of the
science of semeiotics. Any Argument is a Sign, and it is also a
continuous process of semeiosis; the two labels are not mutually
exclusive. Moreover, calling the Universe a Sign is in no way
treating it as a "thing," since after all, "a sign is not a real
thing" (EP 2:303; 1904). Our further disagreements about the nature
of semeiosis, the definition of "Representamen," and whether "Sign"
designates a triad or a correlate are well-documented; so we need not
rehash them.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 11:23 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I am going to only focus on the meaning of 'sign' and 'semiosis.
That is, I will refer only to one of JAS's comment below:
" Do you therefore deny that the Universe is a Sign? Or do you
view something other than God as its Object? Or do you simply think
that Peirce was wrong about every Sign being strictly passive in
relation to its Object? Rejecting the impassibility of God leaves
only those three options, as far as I can tell."
ET: I deny that the Universe is a Sign. My view is that Peirce did
not say that the "Universe is a Sign' . He wrote: "the entire
universe - not merely the universe of existents, but all that wider
universe, embracing the universe of existents as a part, the universe
which we are all accustomed to refer to as 'the truth' - that all this
universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of
signs" 5.449f.
I read the above phrase of 'perfused with signs' to refer to the
dynamic irreducible semiosic process of transforming data from
objects, via the representamen, into interpretants. This constant
plethora of triadic processes, IS the universe.
I don't reduce this action of semiosis to a 'thing'; i.e., I don't
reduce this triadic semiosis process to ONE Sign. And I think we also
have to be careful of what is meant by the term of 'sign'. Do we mean
the full triad of O-R-I? Or, the mediative process of the
Representamen? So- if we are, by the term of 'Sign' meaning the full
triad, then, I don't reduce the plethora of signs to ONE triad. And
if we mean the Representamen, then, again, I don't reduce the
mediative action to ONE action. I agree that the Representamen is
passive to the Object, but it transforms this input data into an
Interpretant information - which triad is a Sign.
The step that JAS takes, - which is, I consider, regressive and
reductionist, does reduce the whole 'perfusion of signs' - to not
merely one sign, but to a conclusion that the Universe IS a Sign
[full triad or representamen? - I'm guessing - Representamen].
Can one really conclude that the Universe is not a full triadic
process but is instead, only the mediative process - which requires
an external Object to even exist as such? After all, the
Representamen, that mediative process, does not exist per se, it
functions only within the triadic semiosic process. Is the Universe
only the mediative process? That seems illogical. Even if, in its
generalizing nature, the sign/representamen generalizes among many
other signs/representamens to coalesce into a commonality - this
still doesn't mean that it 'exists on its own'.
The way I read Peirce's statement is that the entire Universe is NOT
a SIGN; it is a semiosic process generating a plethora of triadic
signs- and even, different representamens/laws. Therefore, there is
no external realm to the Universe; it is self-sufficient and
self-generating.
Edwina
[6]
Virus-free. www.avg.com
Links:
------
[1]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
-----------------------------
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 .
