Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Brief report on the pandemic from a Peircean triadic perspective by Fernando Zalamea
Auke - thanks for your comments. 1] Yes, I now see your point, with 'one monad interacting with another monad' - and I agree. 2] With regard to your rejection that the categories operate as linear modes - I accept your explanation. 3] And I fully agree with you on the rejection of ideological goals in a discussion and analysis! Edwina On Fri 10/04/20 4:47 AM , Auke van Breemen a.bree...@chello.nl sent: Edwina, You wrote: In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads [Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with other full triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both genuine and degenerate [1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. -- Also in my view, but I keep insisting that it is possible to look at this complexus as a monad entering an interaction with another monad, the complexus being involved. For instance when describing an interaction and its ensuing proces of interpretation we just start with identifying the actors. I don't think we disagree on this point. what is involved will evolve in the process of analizis. Which in order to be relatively complete must deal with two processes: 1. 'a,b-result' and 2. 'b,a -result'. You wrote: 3] You say that a citizen or government can be considered a monad [Firstness] .which then interacts [Secondness]..etc. I disagree with this, for it seems to be using the categories within a linear order, ie, setting them up as ordinals where First=Firstness, and Second=Secondness and Third=Thirdness. I disagree with such an analysis. -- I can't easily respond to this for the risk of suffering from a lack of understanding the meaning. Do you state that you disagree with me raising that impression of linearity, knowing that I don't commit that fault or are you politely stating that I take matters linear? If the latter, I disagree. In KiF the input output relation stands as a line perpendicular on the diamond, in the center at the index position, signifying the cotagation of all involved triadic relations. The plane is for analytical purposes. It is structured according to the categorical dependency relations, but has to be filled in with the telos of the proces of investigation in mind and explicated in the procress description. You wrote: Although, I note that Peirce's cosmology puts Firstness as First] And then...we begin to disagree. -- For me the primacy issue is a matter of different ways of looking at matters. Akin to Aristotles remark on first in the order of being as contrasted to the order of knowledge. Or Stampers distinction between a radical subjectivist and an actualist perspective on matters. As long as no ideological goals are served by the discussion, I am fine with either approach. Auke Op 9 april 2020 om 14:46 schreef Edwina Taborsky : Auke - Thanks for your comments...I'll continue with my own comments 1] I don't say that my view is not suited/or is suited to political issues. I was only discussing the categorical mode of Thirdness, and since Thirdness is an action providing rule-based continuity- then, of course, it functions within the political or societal realm of life. Thirdness of course, not does function alone [see 5.436]. None of the categories, really, function alone. 2] I agree therefore that the Sign, as a triad, is the point of departure - not the nature of Thirdness. [Nor, indeed, are any of the categories the 'point of departure'. Although, I note that Peirce's cosmology puts Firstness as First] And then...we begin to disagree. 3] You say that a citizen or government can be considered a monad [Firstness] .which then interacts [Secondness]..etc. I disagree with this, for it seems to be using the categories within a linear order, ie, setting them up as ordinals where First=Firstness, and Second=Secondness and Third=Thirdness. I disagree with such an analysis. In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads [Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with other full triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both genuine and degenerate [1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. So, if we use as an example, a government or society as a full triadic Sign, then, it could be reacting to the action of another government or agency [its Object] within a mode of Secondness [eg, 9-11]; where the govt, first reacts to the impact of 2ns, and the Immediate Interpretant is in a mode of 1ns; the next is 2ns - and then, using its knowledge base within the Representamen, the Final Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. But these are not linear; they are 'experiences' so to speak and more complex. Edwina On Thu 09/04/20 4:28 AM , Auke van Breemen a.bree...@chello.nl sent: Edwina, Thanks for the clarification. It
Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Brief report on the pandemic from a Peircean triadic perspective by Fernando Zalamea
Edwina, You wrote: In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads [Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with other full triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both genuine and degenerate [1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. -- Also in my view, but I keep insisting that it is possible to look at this complexus as a monad entering an interaction with another monad, the complexus being involved. For instance when describing an interaction and its ensuing proces of interpretation we just start with identifying the actors. I don't think we disagree on this point. what is involved will evolve in the process of analizis. Which in order to be relatively complete must deal with two processes: 1. 'a,b-result' and 2. 'b,a -result'. You wrote: 3] You say that a citizen or government can be considered a monad [Firstness] .which then interacts [Secondness]..etc. I disagree with this, for it seems to be using the categories within a linear order, ie, setting them up as ordinals where First=Firstness, and Second=Secondness and Third=Thirdness. I disagree with such an analysis. -- I can't easily respond to this for the risk of suffering from a lack of understanding the meaning. Do you state that you disagree with me raising that impression of linearity, knowing that I don't commit that fault or are you politely stating that I take matters linear? If the latter, I disagree. In KiF the input output relation stands as a line perpendicular on the diamond, in the center at the index position, signifying the cotagation of all involved triadic relations. The plane is for analytical purposes. It is structured according to the categorical dependency relations, but has to be filled in with the telos of the proces of investigation in mind and explicated in the procress description. You wrote: Although, I note that Peirce's cosmology puts Firstness as First] And then...we begin to disagree. -- For me the primacy issue is a matter of different ways of looking at matters. Akin to Aristotles remark on first in the order of being as contrasted to the order of knowledge. Or Stampers distinction between a radical subjectivist and an actualist perspective on matters. As long as no ideological goals are served by the discussion, I am fine with either approach. Auke Op 9 april 2020 om 14:46 schreef Edwina Taborsky : > > Auke - Thanks for your comments...I'll continue with my own comments > > 1] I don't say that my view is not suited/or is suited to political > issues. I was only discussing the categorical mode of Thirdness, and since > Thirdness is an action providing rule-based continuity- then, of course, it > functions within the political or societal realm of life. Thirdness of > course, not does function alone [see 5.436]. None of the categories, really, > function alone. > > 2] I agree therefore that the Sign, as a triad, is the point of departure > - not the nature of Thirdness. [Nor, indeed, are any of the categories the > 'point of departure'. Although, I note that Peirce's cosmology puts Firstness > as First] And then...we begin to disagree. > > 3] You say that a citizen or government can be considered a monad > [Firstness] .which then interacts [Secondness]..etc. I disagree with this, > for it seems to be using the categories within a linear order, ie, setting > them up as ordinals where First=Firstness, and Second=Secondness and > Third=Thirdness. I disagree with such an analysis. > > In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads > [Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with other > full triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both genuine and > degenerate [1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. > > So, if we use as an example, a government or society as a full triadic > Sign, then, it could be reacting to the action of another government or > agency [its Object] within a mode of Secondness [eg, 9-11]; where the govt, > first reacts to the impact of 2ns, and the Immediate Interpretant is in a > mode of 1ns; the next is 2ns - and then, using its knowledge base within the > Representamen, the Final Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. But these are not > linear; they are 'experiences' so to speak and more complex. > > Edwina > > > > > > > On Thu 09/04/20 4:28 AM , Auke van Breemen a.bree...@chello.nl sent: > > > > > > Edwina, > > > > Thanks for the clarification. It seems to point to the difference > > in our respective approaches, and I agree that yours is not ideally suited > > to adress political issues. For completeness sake: for me, a sign that > > fulfills its sign-function in raising interpretant signs (responses) is the > > point of departure, not the nature of thirdness and its degenerate modes. > > So, for me a citizen or government can be looked at as two monads A,B > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Brief report on the pandemic from a Peircean triadic perspective by Fernando Zalamea
Auke - Thanks for your comments...I'll continue with my own comments 1] I don't say that my view is not suited/or is suited to political issues. I was only discussing the categorical mode of Thirdness, and since Thirdness is an action providing rule-based continuity- then, of course, it functions within the political or societal realm of life. Thirdness of course, not does function alone [see 5.436]. None of the categories, really, function alone. 2] I agree therefore that the Sign, as a triad, is the point of departure - not the nature of Thirdness. [Nor, indeed, are any of the categories the 'point of departure'. Although, I note that Peirce's cosmology puts Firstness as First] And then...we begin to disagree. 3] You say that a citizen or government can be considered a monad [Firstness] .which then interacts [Secondness]..etc. I disagree with this, for it seems to be using the categories within a linear order, ie, setting them up as ordinals where First=Firstness, and Second=Secondness and Third=Thirdness. I disagree with such an analysis. In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads [Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with other full triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both genuine and degenerate [1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. So, if we use as an example, a government or society as a full triadic Sign, then, it could be reacting to the action of another government or agency [its Object] within a mode of Secondness [eg, 9-11]; where the govt, first reacts to the impact of 2ns, and the Immediate Interpretant is in a mode of 1ns; the next is 2ns - and then, using its knowledge base within the Representamen, the Final Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. But these are not linear; they are 'experiences' so to speak and more complex. Edwina On Thu 09/04/20 4:28 AM , Auke van Breemen a.bree...@chello.nl sent: Edwina, Thanks for the clarification. It seems to point to the difference in our respective approaches, and I agree that yours is not ideally suited to adress political issues. For completeness sake: for me, a sign that fulfills its sign-function in raising interpretant signs (responses) is the point of departure, not the nature of thirdness and its degenerate modes. So, for me a citizen or government can be looked at as two monads A,B (firstness), that on a specific occasion interact AB (secondness), with a response C as a consequence (a first until it interacts itself). The description of the process that leads to the response intends to express the law(s) (thirdness) that governs the process. The distinctions made with regard to signs (small or 1902/3 classification) scaffold the description. Best, Auke Op 8 april 2020 om 23:32 schreef Edwina Taborsky : Auke - thanks for your post. In this analysis, I'm looking at only the operation of Thirdness in both its genuine and degenerate modes. That is - I'm not considering the nature of the triad, ie, the Sign [a member of society, a government].I am not considering the triadic relations which make up a Sign. I am considering only of the category of Thirdness - which is the 'medium or connecting bond'. 1.337. that is Thirdness sets up commonalities. Thirdness, operating within a degenerate mode, i.e., within Secondness - sets up a specific type of commonality.an existential 'physical connection' , as an example, Peirce tells us of how 'a pin fastens two things together by sticking through one and also through the other. 1.366. My view of this 'pin' in a society is that 'networked interactive community. This is not necessarily intentional; it is indeed almost accidental, in that proximity within a common location binds the individual units into some kind of cohesion. Thirdness, operating within Firstness - suggests 'resemblance between forms' [1.367] - something which he refers to also as 'Thirds of comparison. My view of this in a society, understood as a collection of individuals [not a random set] is that there is a certain degree of similarity of type that established that commonality in this population. Therefore - some aspects cannot be 'decided on one's own'; for the point of a collection is its commonality. As for genuine Thirdness - I don't see it as a 'networked interactive community' - for I consider that this 'network' relies on the existence [2ns] of 'things'...which is why I see the networked interactive community as 'things [people] held together by some common idea [3ns]. But genuine Thirdness, in my view, remains as pure thought - 'that which is what it is by virtue of imparting a quality to reactions in the future' [1.343] Edwina On Wed 08/04/20 4:40 PM , a.bree...@chello.nl sent: Edwina, In your take at the matter a 'networked interactive community' and índividuals interacting' seem to me not
Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Brief report on the pandemic from a Peircean triadic perspective by Fernando Zalamea
Edwina, Thanks for the clarification. It seems to point to the difference in our respective approaches, and I agree that yours is not ideally suited to adress political issues. For completeness sake: for me, a sign that fulfills its sign-function in raising interpretant signs (responses) is the point of departure, not the nature of thirdness and its degenerate modes. So, for me a citizen or government can be looked at as two monads A,B (firstness), that on a specific occasion interact AB (secondness), with a response C as a consequence (a first until it interacts itself). The description of the process that leads to the response intends to express the law(s) (thirdness) that governs the process. The distinctions made with regard to signs (small or 1902/3 classification) scaffold the description. Best, Auke Op 8 april 2020 om 23:32 schreef Edwina Taborsky : > > Auke - thanks for your post. > > In this analysis, I'm looking at only the operation of Thirdness in both > its genuine and degenerate modes. That is - I'm not considering the nature of > the triad, ie, the Sign [a member of society, a government].I am not > considering the triadic relations which make up a Sign. I am considering > only of the category of Thirdness - which is the 'medium or connecting bond'. > 1.337. that is Thirdness sets up commonalities. > > Thirdness, operating within a degenerate mode, i.e., within Secondness - > sets up a specific type of commonality.an existential 'physical connection' > , as an example, Peirce tells us of how 'a pin fastens two things together by > sticking through one and also through the other. 1.366. My view of this 'pin' > in a society is that 'networked interactive community. This is not > necessarily intentional; it is indeed almost accidental, in that proximity > within a common location binds the individual units into some kind of > cohesion. > > Thirdness, operating within Firstness - suggests 'resemblance between > forms' [1.367] - something which he refers to also as 'Thirds of comparison. > My view of this in a society, understood as a collection of individuals [not > a random set] is that there is a certain degree of similarity of type that > established that commonality in this population. Therefore - some aspects > cannot be 'decided on one's own'; for the point of a collection is its > commonality. > > As for genuine Thirdness - I don't see it as a 'networked interactive > community' - for I consider that this 'network' relies on the existence [2ns] > of 'things'...which is why I see the networked interactive community as > 'things [people] held together by some common idea [3ns]. > > But genuine Thirdness, in my view, remains as pure thought - 'that which > is what it is by virtue of imparting a quality to reactions in the future' > [1.343] > > Edwina > > > > > > > On Wed 08/04/20 4:40 PM , a.bree...@chello.nl sent: > > > > > > Edwina, > > > > In your take at the matter a 'networked interactive community' and > > índividuals interacting' seem to me not to be on the same plane. I am > > inclined to see the first as a 3.3 and the second as a 3.2. > > > > And, your 3.1 'mimetic population' is if taken as a sign aspect > > iconicity, which is in basic semiotics of categorical value 2.1 so if > > lifted to belong at bottom to thirdness a 3.2.1. if government only offers > > suggestive (rheme 3.1) examples, individuals in the populace are left to > > decide on their own. > > > > Since member of society and governemt are to be regarded as signs, > > we are able to at least look at the matter from three perspectives for > > each. Sign in itself, sign in relation to iets object and sign as it > > adrfresses its interpreting sign. > > > > Auke > > > > > > Op 7 april 2020 om 16:58 schreef Edwina Taborsky : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Auke > > > > > > Governance, if we want to use a Peircean category to analyze > > > it, would always have to be within the mode of Thirdness. > > > > > > Now- whether the governing mode is 3-1 [Thirdness operating > > > in a mode of Firstness, which sets up a mimetic population] ; or 3-2, > > > [Thirdness operating in a mode of Secondness] which sets up a networked > > > interactive population [ie, individuals interacting]; or 3-3 [Thirdness > > > operating in a mode of Thirdness] - which is pure ideology detached from > > > a population - well, I think we could analyze such a framework. Not easy > > > of course. > > > > > > But the article did not deal with the categories in this way; > > > instead, it simply too each category 'in itself' and judged how it would > > > operate as the guiding principle of a society. I disagree with such a > > > tactic for the reasons I already gave. > > > > > > Edwina >
Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Brief report on the pandemic from a Peircean triadic perspective by Fernando Zalamea
Auke - thanks for your post. In this analysis, I'm looking at only the operation of Thirdness in both its genuine and degenerate modes. That is - I'm not considering the nature of the triad, ie, the Sign [a member of society, a government].I am not considering the triadic relations which make up a Sign. I am considering only of the category of Thirdness - which is the 'medium or connecting bond'. 1.337. that is Thirdness sets up commonalities. Thirdness, operating within a degenerate mode, i.e., within Secondness - sets up a specific type of commonality.an existential 'physical connection' , as an example, Peirce tells us of how 'a pin fastens two things together by sticking through one and also through the other. 1.366. My view of this 'pin' in a society is that 'networked interactive community. This is not necessarily intentional; it is indeed almost accidental, in that proximity within a common location binds the individual units into some kind of cohesion. Thirdness, operating within Firstness - suggests 'resemblance between forms' [1.367] - something which he refers to also as 'Thirds of comparison. My view of this in a society, understood as a collection of individuals [not a random set] is that there is a certain degree of similarity of type that established that commonality in this population. Therefore - some aspects cannot be 'decided on one's own'; for the point of a collection is its commonality. As for genuine Thirdness - I don't see it as a 'networked interactive community' - for I consider that this 'network' relies on the existence [2ns] of 'things'...which is why I see the networked interactive community as 'things [people] held together by some common idea [3ns]. But genuine Thirdness, in my view, remains as pure thought - 'that which is what it is by virtue of imparting a quality to reactions in the future' [1.343] Edwina On Wed 08/04/20 4:40 PM , a.bree...@chello.nl sent: Edwina, In your take at the matter a 'networked interactive community' and índividuals interacting' seem to me not to be on the same plane. I am inclined to see the first as a 3.3 and the second as a 3.2. And, your 3.1 'mimetic population' is if taken as a sign aspect iconicity, which is in basic semiotics of categorical value 2.1 so if lifted to belong at bottom to thirdness a 3.2.1. if government only offers suggestive (rheme 3.1) examples, individuals in the populace are left to decide on their own. Since member of society and governemt are to be regarded as signs, we are able to at least look at the matter from three perspectives for each. Sign in itself, sign in relation to iets object and sign as it adrfresses its interpreting sign. Auke Op 7 april 2020 om 16:58 schreef Edwina Taborsky : Auke Governance, if we want to use a Peircean category to analyze it, would always have to be within the mode of Thirdness. Now- whether the governing mode is 3-1 [Thirdness operating in a mode of Firstness, which sets up a mimetic population] ; or 3-2, [Thirdness operating in a mode of Secondness] which sets up a networked interactive population [ie, individuals interacting]; or 3-3 [Thirdness operating in a mode of Thirdness] - which is pure ideology detached from a population - well, I think we could analyze such a framework. Not easy of course. But the article did not deal with the categories in this way; instead, it simply too each category 'in itself' and judged how it would operate as the guiding principle of a society. I disagree with such a tactic for the reasons I already gave. Edwina On Tue 07/04/20 10:10 AM , Auke van Breemen a.bree...@upcmail.nl sent: Edwina, list, I feel inclined to give a less unfavorite response to the suggestion, although the way of putting things is too crude. if we want to look at diferent kinds of governments from a categorical perspective. The first thing we must admid is that always the categorical distinction must be taken in a relative way, i.e. it is about a firstness, secondness and thirdness aspect of a third. If taken in this way we could design a Trikon (taken as a ternary plot), dealing with control in society. First monad is self control or anarchy, second node is complete control or dictatorship and the third is representive government with free elections. Now, it is immediately evident that all governments we score on the trikon partake in all three aspects but differ in the mixture. With respect to the pandemic, we must accept that at this moment we cannot say which type of political response proves best. What we can do is wait for the results, investigate the measures taken and associate them with a score on the Trikon. And next look at the consequences each of the governments harvested. But all that is stuff to be discussed on the list
