Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness

[Edwina Taborsky]

Jon, list

With regard to bringing Peirce’s work to a broader audience - I can think of a 
number of issues.

1] We should not assume that our audience are first year undergraduates; as you 
point out - the people who are exploring Peirce may very well be much more 
advanced scholars in other fields, with their own discipline’s vocabulary and 
frameworks. I think we should be more amenable to enabling them to use their 
vocabulary and framework - within a Peircean framework. 
There is, for example, a great deal of excellent work on Anticipation - within 
physics, computers, AI, biology - which certainly fits in with Peirce’s work on 
Existential Graphs.  The terms used are different - but- the concepts are 
similar - and Peircean conferences should encourage this awareness - and not 
require the authors to use Peirce’s terms.

2] I think a great setback and problem with using Peirce in these scientific 
areas was the original marginalizing of him by setting his work up as a ‘ 
Semiotics’ - with de Saussure as the main author and Saussure’s semiology as 
the main analytic framework within the field of semiotics. Saussure’s semiology 
is, in my view, a simplistic binary framework of ’this-means -that’ with an 
external Agent necessarily uniting the two - and furthermore - it is linguistic 
or cultural, and ignores the natural semiosis.. This framework readily enables 
an overarching ideology of other dyads - which fit right into the leftist 
Marxist frames of created  class and ‘oppressor/oppressed’ . And so, we get 
semiotics viewed as semiology [ which it is not] and operating as some kind of 
subjectivist free-interpretation…
The many books on semiotics all misuse Peirce in this way -  including 
providing images of the semiotic triad as a triangle [rather than an 
‘umbrella-triadic spoke].
And of course - these works also totally misunderstand the categories.

Indeed - I think the categories are one of the most misunderstood of Peirce’s 
basic theories…[well, yes, so is the triad, locked into that triangle image]…

Edwina

> On Dec 13, 2023, at 5:36 PM, John F Sowa  wrote:
> 
> Jon, Robert, Edwina, List,
> 
> All three of your discussions are well considered.  As I said at the 
> beginning, we have to distinguish two audiences:  Peirce scholars, for whom 
> exact quotations, sources, and dates are essential; and 21st century readers 
> in all branches of cognitive science.  I'll say a bit more, using the 
> attached figs2_3.pdf for examples.
> 
> For textual criticism and for establishing connections between and among 
> texts, exact quotations are essential.  But in writing for a 21st century 
> audience, the terminology must be faithful to Peirce, to his sources, and to 
> the expected vocabulary of the readers.   To illustrate the issues, I'm 
> enclosing an excerpt from Section 2 of the article I'm writing -- figs2_3.pdf.
> 
> Re Peirce's ethics of terminology:  As Peirce said, he would consider himself 
> bound by those ethics if anybody else had adopted and used his terminology.   
> That is why he coined the term pragmaticism to distinguish his intentions 
> from a broader usage by others.  I believe that is also why he coined the new 
> term phaneroscopy, which was strongly influenced by his correspondence with 
> Lady Welby.
> 
> To Jon:  I agree with Robert about "your unusually exhaustive work on" 
> Peirce's writings about interpretants.  I had read most of the excerpts you 
> cited, but the absence of dates in CP and NEM made it hard to keep track of 
> the sequence.
> 
> Peirce's own terminology had changed over the years.  He did not consider 
> himself to be limited by the words he coined himself, unless other people had 
> adopted them.  That is the major reason why he adopted the term pragmaticism. 
>   But when nobody else adopted one of his coinages, he felt no obligation to 
> continue using that term.  
> 
> For the attached excerpt I was writing for a mixed audience.  Most of my 
> expected readers have a strong background in one or more branches of 
> cognitive science, a field that was organized at a conference in 1983.  The 
> six founding branches include philosophy, psychology, linguistics, artificial 
> intelligence, neuroscience, and anthropology.  Peirce contributed to or 
> studied in depth aspects of all those fields, and experts in each of them 
> participated in the Peirce Bicentennial in 1989 and the Centennial in 2009.
> 
> There is much more to discuss about these issues and about ways of bringing 
> Peirce's work and its modern implications to the attention of a broader 
> audience.  I would like to hear and discuss various suggestions.
> 
> John
> 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness

[robert marty]

Jon, List,
I appreciate your unusually exhaustive work on this delicate issue, and
almost agree with its conclusion. My criticism concerns the invisible but
very real limitations you have imposed on it, for reasons of your own; they
detract from its scope, and that's a pity. I'll explain myself in a few
points that I'm obviously ready to discuss. In order of importance:
1. First of all, I'd like to draw your attention to your use of the term
"trichotomy" in connection with the various triplets of names you've
pointed out. This term appears 6 times in your text; on examination, you
share this qualification with Bergman and De Tienne, but not with Peirce
(nor does it appear in any of the 76 definitions of the sign I've pointed
out). It's a very dangerous denomination that creates confusion for two
reasons:
- These divisions are not trichotomies in the sense of Peirce, who defines
them as follows and uses them systematically when classifying the Sciences
of Discovery:


*It turns out that in most cases the divisions are trichotomic; the First
of the three members relating to universal elements or laws, the Second
arranging classes of forms and seeking to bring them under universal laws,
the Third going into the utmost detail, describing individual phenomena and
endeavoring to explain them. But not all the divisions are of this characte*r
(CP 1.180)


The right word is "tripartition" for the interpretants (and for the two
objects it will be bipartition ).
 NB: Divisions that are not trichotomous are precisely partitions, like the
bipartition between Physics and Psychics Sciences.

- What's more, you can't ignore the fact that, when classifying signs,
Peirce, like all his epigones, proceeded to trichotomize each of the sign's
constituent elements to 3, 6 or 10 (undefined in my opinion) and retained
only the valid combinations, respectively 10, 28 and 66. (I evoked a
"thichotomic machine" to show the systematic nature of these operations;
this machine has long been programmed by Patrick Benazet for any number n
of partitions: patrick-benazet.chez-alice.fr/treillis_en_ligne/lattices).

2 . Then there's the inevitable question of determinations, which you can't
avoid. You try to sidestep it by pointing out, just in note 3, in which you
evoke a certain "context" of controversy that obscures the essential point,
namely determinations. Here's the full quote:

I
*t is evident that a possible can determine nothing but a Possible, it is
equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a
Necessitant. Hence it follows from the Definition of a Sign that since the
Dynamoid Object determines; the Immediate Object,*
*  Which determines the Sign itself, *
*  Which determines the Destinate Interpretant*
*  Which determines the Effective Interpretant*
*  Which determines the Explicit Interpretant*
* the six trichotomies, instead of determining 729 classes of signs, as
they would if they were independent, only yield 28 classes; and if, as I
strongly opine (not to say almost prove) there are four other trichotomies
of signs of the same order of importance, instead of making 59049 classes,
these will only come to 66 You consider them in the triadic sign (see
the first sentence of your abstract. Why don't you consider them for the
"hexadic" sign? (*SS, 1908 Dec 23, p.31)


Why are determinations important?  Quite simply because, without
determinations, there can be no mastery of the combinatorial explosion.
It's thanks to the determinations that go from one trichotomy to the next,
respecting the obvious permissions of one over the other, that the 28
authorized classes are built. This is an absolute necessity, on the pain of
leaving semiotics behind. Moreover, when Peirce forgets this, he ends up
leaving 59049 difficult questions for future explorers (CP 8.343).

Why doesn't Peirce mention them every time? Because it's obvious to him, if
only because of the consequences.
In short, the mere mention of classes of signs as part of Peircean
semiotics is equivalent to the recognition of successive determinations
between elements, while respecting the relations of interdependence between
universal categories. The classes of signs thus bring back light on the
definitions of the sign itself. I've been modeling all this in formal
mathematical terms for a long time (see all my Academia.edu texts, which
I'm going to integrate into a treatise). This debate gives me a chance to
relaunch it.

2. I come to your conclusion, which I almost share. Indeed, Peirce's
division of tripartitions into two classes:

-
*The immediate, dynamical, and final interpretants are the corresponding
effects of signs in general.*
*- The emotional, energetic, and logical interpretants are the familiar
effects of signs that humans routinely experience as "modifications of
consciousness.*" (JA Schmidt, p.222)


In fact, the relationship between the two classes is one of general to
particular (and not just 

[PEIRCE-L] Mozi’s Philosophy of Universal Love and Analogical Reasoning: The Logic and Religion Webinar, Dec 14 (Thursday)

[FRANCISCO MARIANO]

Dear Colleague,

You are invited to participate in the next session of the Logic and Religion 
Webinar Series which will be held on December 14 (THIS THURSDAY), 2023, at 4pm 
CET with the topic:

Mozi’s Philosophy of Universal Love and Analogical Reasoning
Speaker: Caroline Pires 
Ting (Federal University 
of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
Chair: Jean-Yves Beziau (Federal University of Rio 
de Janeiro, Brazil)

Please, register to receive a zoom link:
https://www.logicandreligion.com/webinars

Abstract: The forthcoming exposition delves into Mozi’s philosophy of Universal 
Love (兼愛, jian'ai) and its profound impact on Chinese civilization. Mozi (墨子, 
c. 470 BCE – c. 391 BCE) is a leading light in Chinese philosophical discourse 
of his time. At the heart of his idea lies the notion of impartial care, 
advocating that all human endeavors ought to originate from an unwavering 
foundation of undistinguished concern. This doctrine is instrumental in shaping 
a distinctive ethos grounded in the ethical and political aspirations for 
societal enhancement. Unbiased love becomes fundamental to his intellectual 
framework, acting as the benchmark for all logical actions. As Chinese 
philosophical traditions began engaging with Western thought in recent times, 
Mohist reasoning experienced a revival, reinforcing the notion that Chinese 
philosophical traditions also possess an analytical inclination. Our goal in 
this talk is to explain how Mozi's understanding of love embodies an idea of 
benevolence rooted in a rigorous epistemological construct.


Join us 5 minutes prior to the beginning of the session!

With best wishes,

--
Francisco de Assis Mariano,
The University of Missouri-Columbia (USA)
LARA Secretary
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.

[PEIRCE-L] Mozi’s Philosophy of Universal Love and Analogical Reasoning: The Logic and Religion Webinar, Dec 14 (Thursday)

[FRANCISCO MARIANO]

 Dear Colleague,

You are invited to participate in the next session of the Logic and Religion 
Webinar Series which will be held on December 14 (THIS THURSDAY), 2023, at 4pm 
CET with the topic:

Mozi’s Philosophy of Universal Love and Analogical Reasoning
Speaker: Caroline Pires 
Ting (Federal University 
of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)
Chair: Jean-Yves Beziau (Federal University of Rio 
de Janeiro, Brazil)

Please, register to receive a zoom link:
https://www.logicandreligion.com/webinars

Abstract: The forthcoming exposition delves into Mozi’s philosophy of Universal 
Love (兼愛, jian'ai) and its profound impact on Chinese civilization. Mozi (墨子, 
c. 470 BCE – c. 391 BCE) is a leading light in Chinese philosophical discourse 
of his time. At the heart of his idea lies the notion of impartial care, 
advocating that all human endeavors ought to originate from an unwavering 
foundation of undistinguished concern. This doctrine is instrumental in shaping 
a distinctive ethos grounded in the ethical and political aspirations for 
societal enhancement. Unbiased love becomes fundamental to his intellectual 
framework, acting as the benchmark for all logical actions. As Chinese 
philosophical traditions began engaging with Western thought in recent times, 
Mohist reasoning experienced a revival, reinforcing the notion that Chinese 
philosophical traditions also possess an analytical inclination. Our goal in 
this talk is to explain how Mozi's understanding of love embodies an idea of 
benevolence rooted in a rigorous epistemological construct.


Join us 5 minutes prior to the beginning of the session!

With best wishes,

--
Francisco de Assis Mariano,
The University of Missouri-Columbia (USA)
LARA Secretary
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.