Jon, list, Your post of June 7th is such a clear, complete (as an outline), yet extraordinarily succinct articulation of the semeiotic preconditions for the formation of "a 'scientific' intelligence, that is to say, by an intelligence capable of learning by experience" that I'm surprised it hasn't been commented on here since its posting.
I've just very recently returned from a European holiday and so haven't had time to study it. But having read it twice, I'm determined to do just that (my approach will be to create a formal outline of your argumentation which will hopefully clarify it for me, after which I may have some substantial comments or questions). Yet, while I'm still suffering from jet lag (worse for me flying east-west), even in my present foggy-minded state I do have one question regarding a term you used in your concluding paragraph: JAS: 3ns of 3ns is a genuine triadic relation in which the Object determines the Sign, but the Sign has no effect whatsoever on the Object. Consequently, the Sign can only *mediate* between its Object and its Interpretant to the extent that the Object is also *semeiosic* in nature; i.e., *intelligible*, possessing a Form *entitatively* that the Sign embodies *representatively*. After all, the ideal function of a Sign is to determine a Quasi-mind to the very same Interpretant as if the Object *itself* had acted upon it. By contrast, 2ns of 3ns is a *dual* consciousness, encompassing both *passive* perception (including sensation) and Experience on the one hand, and *active* intention and volition on the other. When you write ". . .the Sign can only *mediate* between its Object and its Interpretant to the extent that the Object is also *semeiosic* in nature; i.e., *intelligible*, possessing a Form *entitatively* that the Sign embodies *representatively,*" are you referencing Peirce's 'entiative graphs'? If so, how so? Or, rather, are you employing the term in one of its vernacular meanings? For example, Merriam-Webster gives these: E*ntitative* 1: considered as mere entity <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entity> abstracted from all circumstances or relations 2: being an entity : having real existence In a word, are you using 'entitative' formally (as Peirce did) or colloquially? Or is it a formal term in your analysis while not directly related to the entitative graphs? Your conclusion seems to me to epitomize the semeiosic foundation of scientific inquiry. JAS: Having been determined to an Interpretant by a Sign of an Object, I can *subsequently* affect that Object by an exercise of my will. In particular, I can design and conduct *experiments* to corroborate or falsify my previous Perceptual Judgments by putting myself in a position to Experience new ones. Perhaps more on this remarkable conclusion when my muddled head clears. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#m_-7440809515900283571_m_194072075878678532_m_-9005765531924896432_m_-2384580228058394157_m_-7764003022543160497_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:04 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > List: > > According to Peirce, Semeiotic is the science of determining "what *must > be* the characters of all signs used by a 'scientific' intelligence, that > is to say, by an intelligence capable of learning by experience" (CP 2.227; > c. 1897). >
----------------------------- 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 .
