[PEIRCE-L] "semantics is not semiotic"

[Michael Shapiro]

List,

















At Gary R.'s urging, I have overcome my initial inclination
to desist from responding, so as "to avoid prolonging the debate"
(Gary R.'s words) over my post on the Second Amendment, but will focus only on
Tom's phrase "semantics is not semiotic." It's not clear to me what he
meant by that, but it may be worth considering the difference in nomenclature,
particularly as it bears on some staples of Peirce's pragmatism (as I mentioned
fleetingly at the end of my post).

 

    Semiotic
is all encompassing because its domain is semiosis, whereas semantics is
restricted to meaning in human language. Since language is the "passkey
semiotic" (Louis Hjelmslev's words), we naturally use words to describe
and analyze both domains. All linguistic meaning is uniformly semiotic (adj.).

 

    In
the clause of the Second Amendment at issue, the importance of element order is
paramount. This syntactic feature illustrates two strictly related things
simultaneously: (1) syntax may be paradigmatic in other respects, but in the
respect concerned it is syntagmatic, i. e., concerns itself with the sequential
order of the paradigmatic elements in sentences; and, as a consequence, (2) the
order is hierarchical––a rank order––just as one expects from the global
meaning of the concept of order.

 

    All
of this is by way of both implying and asserting, to differing degrees, that
there is no semiosis without the ordering of the elements of any sign action
(including thought). This is true of simultaneous syntagms (like phonemes) as
well as sequential ones (like phrases, clauses, sentences, etc.) And this is
where, I think, Peircean ideas of semiosis in the context of his pragmaticism come
in. The fact of differing interpretations of the wording of the Second
Amendment is an illustration of both the subjunctive meaning and of the
conditional directionality inherent in the semiosis that is figured by the
words and the action they lead to pragmaticistically.

 

Michael







-
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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Element Order and the Grammar of the Second Amendment

[Jon Awbrey]

Edwina, List,

We all know and love our written constitutions, if and when we can keep them,
but intelligent interpretation requires intelligent interpreters -- thus the
critical role of research, scholarship, and universal free public education
in sustaining democratic rule -- and Socrates' warning about what we might
now call the "poverty of the symbolic stimulus" applies here as elsewhere.

Regards,

Jon

On 10/4/2015 11:17 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:

There may not be a linguistic SOLUTION to how a rational society 'ought' to 
govern itself, but there most certainly has
to be a linguistic EXPRESSION of that governance. Otherwise, the rules of order 
within the society would operate by
whim. Language, for our species, expresses not only our individual whims but 
also our collective rules. To prove, to
ourselves and others, that they are our collective rules, we have our 
legislature pass them and our authority sign them.

Edwina


- Original Message - From: "Jon Awbrey" 
To: "Michael Shapiro" ; "CSP" 
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 10:20 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Element Order and the Grammar of the Second Amendment



Michael, List,

Here is one of several recent articles
I remember reading on the historical
context of the second amendment:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

I seriously doubt if there's a linguistic solution
to the political problem of how a rational society
ought to govern itself.

Regards,

Jon



--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-
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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Element Order and the Grammar of the Second Amendment

[Jon Awbrey]

Michael, List,

Here's another survey article on the history
and interpretation of the second amendment:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/

Just by way of one observation, it appears characteristic of
recent readings to ignore the "well-regulated" condition.

Regards,

Jon

--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] "semantics is not semiotic"

[Edwina Taborsky]

Michael, I'll quibble with your analysis of:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the 
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If I understand you correctly, you parse the above sentence as beginning with 
an assertion, a conclusion - [but your sentence provides us with no reason for 
such a conclusion] - and you put the second half of the sentence as subordinate 
to the first and view it only as a description of the Subject of the Assertion 
(Militia). 

I'll parse it as the opposite: the second half is the Conclusion - and the 
first half is the subordinate reason.  That is, the sentence, in my outline 
provides both a conclusion and a reason and I don't, in my parsing, describe 
the term 'militia'. 

Assertion/Conclusion: The right of the people to bear arms
Reason why: a militia is necessary to maintain a free state.

Note - in my outline none of the key terms are described: militia, people, free 
state.
In your outline, the full sentence describes the term 'militia'. 

Do you see the difference? Your parsing of the sentence provides us with no 
reason for 'a militia'. Surely the sentence-writer couldn't have simply been 
declaring - in an Amendment - that a sovereign state requires an army! That's 
trivial and hardly requires an Amendment. 

Instead, if one parses it as Reason-Conclusion, rather than only a Conclusion 
with a description of the term 'militia', a meaning quite different from the 
one you derive comes up. 

Edwina 
  - Original Message - 
  From: Michael Shapiro 
  To: CSP 
  Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 6:24 AM
  Subject: [PEIRCE-L] "semantics is not semiotic"


  List,


  At Gary R.'s urging, I have overcome my initial inclination to desist from 
responding, so as "to avoid prolonging the debate" (Gary R.'s words) over my 
post on the Second Amendment, but will focus only on Tom's phrase "semantics is 
not semiotic." It's not clear to me what he meant by that, but it may be worth 
considering the difference in nomenclature, particularly as it bears on some 
staples of Peirce's pragmatism (as I mentioned fleetingly at the end of my 
post).



  Semiotic is all encompassing because its domain is semiosis, 
whereas semantics is restricted to meaning in human language. Since language is 
the "passkey semiotic" (Louis Hjelmslev's words), we naturally use words to 
describe and analyze both domains. All linguistic meaning is uniformly semiotic 
(adj.).



  In the clause of the Second Amendment at issue, the importance of 
element order is paramount. This syntactic feature illustrates two strictly 
related things simultaneously: (1) syntax may be paradigmatic in other 
respects, but in the respect concerned it is syntagmatic, i. e., concerns 
itself with the sequential order of the paradigmatic elements in sentences; 
and, as a consequence, (2) the order is hierarchical––a rank order––just as one 
expects from the global meaning of the concept of order.



  All of this is by way of both implying and asserting, to 
differing degrees, that there is no semiosis without the ordering of the 
elements of any sign action (including thought). This is true of simultaneous 
syntagms (like phonemes) as well as sequential ones (like phrases, clauses, 
sentences, etc.) And this is where, I think, Peircean ideas of semiosis in the 
context of his pragmaticism come in. The fact of differing interpretations of 
the wording of the Second Amendment is an illustration of both the subjunctive 
meaning and of the conditional directionality inherent in the semiosis that is 
figured by the words and the action they lead to pragmaticistically.



  Michael





--



  -
  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 .





-
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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Element Order and the Grammar of the Second Amendment

[Jon Awbrey]

Michael, List,

Here is one of several recent articles
I remember reading on the historical
context of the second amendment:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

I seriously doubt if there's a linguistic solution
to the political problem of how a rational society
ought to govern itself.

Regards,

Jon

--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Element Order and the Grammar of the Second Amendment

[Edwina Taborsky]

Jon - I took a quick look at this article. It is not a scholarly or academic 
article but rejects opposing views (the article considers that the 2nd 
Amendment refers only to a government-sanctioned force) by means of personal 
invective, ad hominem (focusing on the personalities of the authors vs the 
rational analysis of the issue) and bias.


I'm not going to argue for or against the Second Amendment but am referring 
strictly to how one interprets its sentential meaning - which includes not 
only key terms such as 'militia', 'people' , 'free state'' but also a focus 
on a reason-conclusion format.


As for 'militia' being comparable to an 'army' - that seems dealt with in 
the Constitution (which was written before the Amendment) Article I, Section 
8, which refers not only to Armies but also to the 'Militia' -i.e,, they are 
not the same.


And Article III, Section 3, refers to treason - which consists in 'levying 
war' against the United States.


Now - can an insurrection against a government which has become corrupted 
into tyranny be defined as treason against the state?


That is - the Constitution refers to collective governance. The Amendments 
refer to individual freedoms. I think this is an important point and might 
help in examining/interpreting the sentence.


Edwina
- Original Message - 
From: "Jon Awbrey" 
To: "Michael Shapiro" ; "CSP" 


Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 10:56 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Element Order and the Grammar of the Second 
Amendment




Michael, List,

Here's another survey article on the history
and interpretation of the second amendment:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/sep/21/to-keep-and-bear-arms/

Just by way of one observation, it appears characteristic of
recent readings to ignore the "well-regulated" condition.

Regards,

Jon

--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache









-
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 
.










-
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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Element Order and the Grammar of the Second Amendment

[Edwina Taborsky]

Jon- I've no idea of the point of your comment. You wrote:

"I seriously doubt if there's a linguistic solution
to the political problem of how a rational society
ought to govern itself."

My comment to you was to critique your rejection of a 'linguistic 
solution' - and I referred instead to the necessity for a 'linguistic 
expression' - I said nothing about their interpretation. That's the role of 
the courts and has nothing to do with Socrates or 'symbolic stimuli'.


Edwina
- Original Message - 
From: "Jon Awbrey" 
To: "Edwina Taborsky" ; "Michael Shapiro" 
; "CSP" 

Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Element Order and the Grammar of the Second Amendment



Edwina, List,

We all know and love our written constitutions, if and when we can keep 
them,
but intelligent interpretation requires intelligent interpreters -- thus 
the
critical role of research, scholarship, and universal free public 
education

in sustaining democratic rule -- and Socrates' warning about what we might
now call the "poverty of the symbolic stimulus" applies here as elsewhere.

Regards,

Jon

On 10/4/2015 11:17 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
There may not be a linguistic SOLUTION to how a rational society 'ought' 
to govern itself, but there most certainly has
to be a linguistic EXPRESSION of that governance. Otherwise, the rules of 
order within the society would operate by
whim. Language, for our species, expresses not only our individual whims 
but also our collective rules. To prove, to
ourselves and others, that they are our collective rules, we have our 
legislature pass them and our authority sign them.


Edwina


- Original Message - From: "Jon Awbrey" 
To: "Michael Shapiro" ; "CSP" 


Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 10:20 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Element Order and the Grammar of the Second 
Amendment




Michael, List,

Here is one of several recent articles
I remember reading on the historical
context of the second amendment:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

I seriously doubt if there's a linguistic solution
to the political problem of how a rational society
ought to govern itself.

Regards,

Jon



--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache






-
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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] "semantics is not semiotic"

[Edwina Taborsky]

Here's an example of my parsing of the amendment into: Reason-Conclusion, 
rather than Michael's: Conclusion-Despcription of one key term.

"An infrastructure of authority is necessary for a free State, the right of the 
people to debate and pass laws shall not be infringed. 

Again, the second half is the conclusion, and the first half provides the 
reason for that conclusion. But, again, there is no description of 'how' this 
agenda will be carried out. 

Edwina


  - Original Message - 
  From: Edwina Taborsky 
  To: Michael Shapiro ; CSP 
  Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 9:32 AM
  Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] "semantics is not semiotic"


  Michael, I'll quibble with your analysis of:

  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, 
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

  If I understand you correctly, you parse the above sentence as beginning with 
an assertion, a conclusion - [but your sentence provides us with no reason for 
such a conclusion] - and you put the second half of the sentence as subordinate 
to the first and view it only as a description of the Subject of the Assertion 
(Militia). 

  I'll parse it as the opposite: the second half is the Conclusion - and the 
first half is the subordinate reason.  That is, the sentence, in my outline 
provides both a conclusion and a reason and I don't, in my parsing, describe 
the term 'militia'. 

  Assertion/Conclusion: The right of the people to bear arms
  Reason why: a militia is necessary to maintain a free state.

  Note - in my outline none of the key terms are described: militia, people, 
free state.
  In your outline, the full sentence describes the term 'militia'. 

  Do you see the difference? Your parsing of the sentence provides us with no 
reason for 'a militia'. Surely the sentence-writer couldn't have simply been 
declaring - in an Amendment - that a sovereign state requires an army! That's 
trivial and hardly requires an Amendment. 

  Instead, if one parses it as Reason-Conclusion, rather than only a Conclusion 
with a description of the term 'militia', a meaning quite different from the 
one you derive comes up. 

  Edwina 
- Original Message - 
From: Michael Shapiro 
To: CSP 
Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 6:24 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] "semantics is not semiotic"


List,


At Gary R.'s urging, I have overcome my initial inclination to desist from 
responding, so as "to avoid prolonging the debate" (Gary R.'s words) over my 
post on the Second Amendment, but will focus only on Tom's phrase "semantics is 
not semiotic." It's not clear to me what he meant by that, but it may be worth 
considering the difference in nomenclature, particularly as it bears on some 
staples of Peirce's pragmatism (as I mentioned fleetingly at the end of my 
post).



Semiotic is all encompassing because its domain is semiosis, 
whereas semantics is restricted to meaning in human language. Since language is 
the "passkey semiotic" (Louis Hjelmslev's words), we naturally use words to 
describe and analyze both domains. All linguistic meaning is uniformly semiotic 
(adj.).



In the clause of the Second Amendment at issue, the importance 
of element order is paramount. This syntactic feature illustrates two strictly 
related things simultaneously: (1) syntax may be paradigmatic in other 
respects, but in the respect concerned it is syntagmatic, i. e., concerns 
itself with the sequential order of the paradigmatic elements in sentences; 
and, as a consequence, (2) the order is hierarchical––a rank order––just as one 
expects from the global meaning of the concept of order.



All of this is by way of both implying and asserting, to 
differing degrees, that there is no semiosis without the ordering of the 
elements of any sign action (including thought). This is true of simultaneous 
syntagms (like phonemes) as well as sequential ones (like phrases, clauses, 
sentences, etc.) And this is where, I think, Peircean ideas of semiosis in the 
context of his pragmaticism come in. The fact of differing interpretations of 
the wording of the Second Amendment is an illustration of both the subjunctive 
meaning and of the conditional directionality inherent in the semiosis that is 
figured by the words and the action they lead to pragmaticistically.



Michael









-
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 .







--



  

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Element Order and the Grammar of the Second Amendment

[Edwina Taborsky]

There may not be a linguistic SOLUTION to how a rational society 'ought' to 
govern itself, but there most certainly has to be a linguistic EXPRESSION of 
that governance. Otherwise, the rules of order within the society would 
operate by whim. Language, for our species, expresses not only our 
individual whims but also our collective rules. To prove, to ourselves and 
others, that they are our collective rules, we have our legislature pass 
them and our authority sign them.


Edwina


- Original Message - 
From: "Jon Awbrey" 
To: "Michael Shapiro" ; "CSP" 


Sent: Sunday, October 04, 2015 10:20 AM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Element Order and the Grammar of the Second 
Amendment




Michael, List,

Here is one of several recent articles
I remember reading on the historical
context of the second amendment:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

I seriously doubt if there's a linguistic solution
to the political problem of how a rational society
ought to govern itself.

Regards,

Jon

--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache









-
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 
.










-
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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Re: [Fwd: Burgin’s Fundamental Triads as Peirceasn Signs.]

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Mark,

I just ran into this old email where you asked:

"For instance, when an individual speaks or e-mails to another individual,
it is a fundamental triad
but I don't know how to interpret this system as a Peircean sign."

I do not remember answering this question.  In any case, here is my current
answer:

The communication between two individuals, A and B, involves the Peircean
triad (also called the Peircean sign):

  fg
A  > Message  --->   B
  (Utterer)   (Sign) (Hearer)
 |  ^
 |  |
 |_|
   h

Figure 1.  Communication between two individuals involves the Peircean
triad, also called the Peircean sign.


Figure 1 is a commutative triangle, or a mathematical category, since f x g
= h, i.e., f followed by g leads to the same result as h.  f = encoding; g
= decoding; h = information transfer.

So we may conclude that your fundamental triad and the Peircean sign are
two different names (or representamens) for the same object, i.e., *the
basic unit of communication.*


All the best.

Sung



On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:59 PM, Burgin, Mark  wrote:

> Dear Sung,
> I was out of town and only now read your interesting e-mail. You found a
> challenging connection between a Peircean sign and a fundamental triad. You
> are a very creative person. What you suggest is a possible interpretation.
> However, in general, a Peircean sign consists of three fundamental triads.
> Besides, fundamental triad has more interpretations than a Peircean sign .
> For instance, when an individual speaks or e-mails to another individual,
> it is a fundamental triad but I don't know how to interpret this system as
> a Peircean sign.
>
> Sincerely,
>Mark
>
> On 7/5/2014 2:37 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
>
>> Dear Mark,
>>
>> I just sent off this email to semioticians.  Please let me know if you
>> have any comments or corrections.
>>
>> With all the best.
>>
>> Sung
>>
>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: Burgin’s Fundamental Triads as Peirceasn Signs.
>> From:"Sungchul Ji" 
>> Date:Sat, July 5, 2014 5:33 pm
>> To:  biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
>> --
>>
>> (Undistorted figures are attached.)
>>
>> Stephen R on the Peirce list cited Peirce as saying:
>>
>> "The undertaking which this volume inaugurates is to   (070514-1)
>> make a philosophy like that of Aristotle, that is to say, to
>> outline a theory so comprehensive that, for a long time to
>> come, the entire work of human reason, in philosophy of
>> every school and kind, in mathematics, in psychology,
>> in physical science, in history, in sociology, and in
>> whatever other department there may be, shall appear
>> as the filling up of its details. The first step toward
>> this is to find simple concepts applicable to every
>> subject."
>>
>>
>> At least one of the potential "simple concepts" that Peirce is referring
>> to above may turn out to be his concept of "irreducible triadicity"
>> embedded in the following quote that Jon recently posted and further
>> explained in Figure 1 and (070514-4):
>>
>>
>>   “Logic will here be defined as formal semiotic.  (070514-2)
>> A definition of a sign will be given which no more
>> refers to human thought than does the definition of
>> a line as the place which a particle occupies, part
>> by part, during a lapse of time. Namely, a sign is
>> something, A, which brings something, B, its interpretant
>> sign determined or created by it, into the same sort
>> of correspondence with something, C, its object, as
>> that in which itself stands to C. It is from this
>> definition, together with a definition of “formal”,
>> that I deduce mathematically the principles of logic.
>> I also make a historical review of all the definitions
>> and conceptions of logic, and show, not merely that my
>> definition is no novelty, but that my non-psychological
>> conception of logic has virtually been quite generally
>> held, though not generally recognized.” (NEM 4, 20–21).
>>
>>
>>ab
>>  C   >   A   >   B
>>  |   ^
>>  |   |
>>  |___|
>>  c
>>
>> Figure 1.   A diagrammatic representation of the principle of irreducible
>> triadicity as applied to the definition of a sign.  A = sign; B =
>> interpretant; and C = object.   a = the sign-object relation (which can be
>> iconic, indexical or symbolic); b = the sign-interpretant relation (which
>> can be rheme, dicisign or argument); 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Practopoiesis: now I understand it better

[Sungchul Ji]

Danko, lists,



(*1*)  I finally completed reading Danko's amazing paper on "practopoiesis"
(or 'making actions'), his theory of the mind-body relation. I am not a
mind-body researcher, but my impression, as a theoretical cell biologist,
is that Danko's theory of mind may be close to truth.  This impression is
based on my finding that practopoiesis can be viewed as a member of the
ur-category (see Figure 1 below) along with other fundamental semiotic
processes (see Figures 2 through 6), including self-organizing chemical
reactions, enzyme catalysis, and gene expression, all of which being
essential for practopoiesis (but only the last process was explicitly
mentioned in [1]).   I tried to arrange these semiotic processes in the
order of  increasing *complexity *(defined as the number of bits required
to describe a process completely) resulting in the following five-node
series:



*Chemical reactions -> Enzyme catalysis -> Gene expression ->
Practopoiesis --> Semiosis*


*Figure 1. *The five levels of semiosis, from *molecules* to *mind*, that
underlie the mind-body relation.  Semiosis includes the macrosemiosis of
the Peircean semiotics and the microsemiosis investigated in biosemiotics
[2].


The symbol *A -> B* in Figure 1 can be read in more than one ways
(i.e., has more than one meanings):


1)  A is the *necessary *(but *not sufficient*) condition for B.

2)  A precedes B ontologically.

3)  B is the emergent property of A; or B emerges from A.
4)  B is *enabled* by A.

5)  B is determined by A and the environmental condition.

6)  "A -->" symbolizes the combination of the system and
its environment, previously referred to as the "*systome*"

  [3; see also Appendix II].



(*2*)  The key point of this post is the suggestion that all the nodes in
Figure 1, including practopoiesis, embody (or are instantiations of) the
ur-category depicted in Figure 2 below.  This diagram is in turn a
geometric representation of *ITR* (Irreducible Triadic Relation) that has
been found to apply to natural sciences, human sciences, and mathematics
[4]. The value of the parameters, A, B, C, f, g, and h, are determined by
the nature of the domain of the human knowledge to which the ITR
template/framework is applied.



 fg

   A  ->  C  --->  B

|   ^
||
|__|

 h


Figure 2.  *The Ur-Category.*  A diagrammatic representation of the
ur-category, i.e., the category to which all categories belong.   The*
commutativity condition *of the category theory is satisfied (which is
denoted as f x g = h),  if the operation f followed by operation g leads to
the same result as operation h [5, 6].   The 3-node diagram satisfying the
commutativity condition is also called  a “commutative triangle” in
category theory.  The ur-category embodies the *Irreducible Triadic
Relation* (ITR) that is  intrinsic to the definition of the sign given by
Peirce (see Figure 2). (Hence I think we can regard Peirce as the
originator of ITR.)   So, the terms, *mathematical category*, *commutative
triangle*, *Peircean sign*, and *ITR* are more or less synonymous.



(*3)*  It may be that one of the the simplest material processes that
embodies ITR is the Belousov-Zhabotinsky (BZ) reaction extensively studied
in chemistry since its discovery in Russia in the 1950's.  In the
[PEIRCE-L] post dated 4/12/2015 and partially reproduced below, I suggested
the following identification of the  components of the ITR in BZ
reaction.   For
a more detailed explanation of the symbols appearing Figure 3, see *Appendix
I.*


 f   g
( A + B) --->  (X + Y)   ---> (D + E)
|  ^
|  |
|___|
   h

Figure 3. * Self-Organizing Chemical Reactions (SOCR).*  The Brusselator as
a prototypical SOCR is a commutative triangle, embodies ITR and performs
semiosis at the molecular level. A, B = reactants; X, Y = transient
intermediates; C, D = products;  f = production step, g = destruction step,
h = information flow (i.e., the molecular structures of E and E are
determined by those of A and B mediated by X and Y).



(*4*)  The example of ITR  that follows the non-enzymic BZ reaction in
complexity is suggested to be the enzyme-catalyzed chemical reaction [7]:



  f
  g

Amino Acid Sequence > *Conforms*  ->  Catalysis
  |
   ^
  |
   |