Edwina, List: ET: I will continue to disagree with JAS's reduction of 'mediation' to refer only to a process that is operative only within the categorical mode of 3ns.
As usual, this is a mischaracterization due to an apparently habitual refusal to express someone else's views in his/her own words, whether Peirce or myself. Again, *according to Peirce*, "mediation" is "the purest conception" of 3ns that we can attain in a single word (CP 1.530, 1903). Moreover, 3ns is a *universal category*, not a "categorical mode"; the latter is a term that Peirce never uses. ET: I note that JAS does not explain the reason why these four classes do not include 3ns and does not include what other processes 'mind' carries out in addition to habit-formation. Again, *according to Peirce*, every sign in every class "includes 3ns" in the sense that it *mediates *between its object and its interpretant. Those four classes simply identify signs that are possibles or existents rather than necessitants according to the mode of apprehension of the sign itself (qualisign/tone or sinsign/token rather than legisign/type), the mode of being of the sign's relation to its dynamical object (iconic or indexical rather than symbolic), and the nature of the sign's influence corresponding to its relation to its final interpretant (term/rheme/seme or proposition/dicisign/pheme rather than argument/delome). Exploring Peirce's entire concept of "mind" would require a whole thread of its own (at least), and it is certainly not reducible to *only *habit-formation. ET: I don't expect any agreement, ever, from JAS on my work - and, my only suggestion is, apart from suggesting that he simply delete my posts - but that, if he chooses to comment, to insert the words "In my view'...i.e., this will show that his rejection of my views is HIS VIEW. It seems prudent to follow one's own advice on such matters before seeking to impose it on others. What I have consistently (and persistently) advocated is carefully distinguishing our own views from those of Peirce, rather than adamantly insisting that any and every alleged "interpretation" of his writings must be treated as legitimate. On the contrary, some purported "readings" of Peirce are *objectively *invalid. ET: That is - rather than setting oneself up as the Official Gatekeeper of the Truth of Peirce ...an example is his comment of "and anyone who says otherwise is disagreeing with Peirce". This kind of name-calling is a classic example of launching an *ad hominem* attack, rather than dealing with the substance of someone else's assertions. Again, *according to Peirce*, "mediation" is "the purest conception" of 3ns that we can attain in a single word (CP 1.530, 1903). Anyone who says otherwise is disagreeing with Peirce--not as a matter of my opinion or anyone else's, but as a fact. ET: It's called the 'charitable' rather than 'gatekeeper' approach. Those reading along can decide for themselves whether the post quoted below embodies the "charitable" or "gatekeeper" approach. ET: It acknowledges that others - who have a different analysis - are not the 'dregs of society' but ...have a different analysis. Period. I never stoop to that kind of name-calling, and all I ask is that those who have a different analysis from Peirce *acknowledge *that their analysis is different from his. Period. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 8:13 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > List > > I will continue to disagree with JAS's reduction of 'mediation' to refer > only to a process that is operative only within the categorical mode of > 3ns. [by the way - is he aware of the three types of 3ns?] - and I don't > consider that the ten classes, which do include a mediative relation denies > my point that, importantly, four of the ten classes of signs do not operate > within the habit-formation actions of 3ns. They do include the mediative > process within their triads but - without any action of habit-formation or > law. My analysis that this is a very important semiosic function in the > universe, i.e., semiosic interactions without habit-formation - has been > ignored. But I continue to focus on this - it is an action that reduces > risk in the universe and enables the exploration of constructive > adaptation. > > I note that JAS does not explain the reason why these four classes do not > include 3ns and does not include what other processes 'mind' carries out in > addition to habit-formation. And - does mind drop this action of > habit-formation? > > And the descriptions I gave of the two types - are those of Peirce. > > I don't expect any agreement, ever, from JAS on my work - and, my only > suggestion is, apart from suggesting that he simply delete my posts - but > that, if he chooses to comment, to insert the words "In my view'...i.e., > this will show that his rejection of my views is HIS VIEW. That is - rather > than setting oneself up as the Official Gatekeeper of the Truth of Peirce > ...an example is his comment of "and anyone who says otherwise is > disagreeing with Peirce". Just say: 'IN MY VIEW, that " anyone who says > otherwise is disagreeing with Peirce." I've asked for this previously on > this list - and have been ignored of course. > > It's called the 'charitable' rather than 'gatekeeper' approach. It > acknowledges that others - who have a different analysis - are not the > 'dregs of society' but ...have a different analysis. Period. But again - > I've asked for such an approach before and been ignored. > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
