Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peircean research
Mike, List: MB: We could say that the phrase 'triadic action' approaches being a technical term, and we cannot deny that Peirce used it ... No one is denying that Peirce used it; on the contrary, I quoted the (only) two specific passages where he did so, and then offered my interpretation of them. "Triadic action" is dyadic action undertaken for a *purpose*, governed by a *law*, or occurring in a *medium*. The purpose, law, or medium is the element of 3ns; the actions themselves, and the Existents participating in them, are elements of 2ns. An Instance of a Sign--i.e., an event of concrete semiosis--is likewise a "triadic action" in the sense that the production of an *individual *Dynamic Interpretant by an *individual *Sign-Replica is governed by the *genuine *triadic relation between the Dynamic Object, Sign, and Final Interpretant. MB: Not to mention other references to mediating action which are not specifically labeled 'triadic action,' which I am sure number many more than two references. Unlike "triadic action," the term "mediating action" does not appear in CP or EP *at all*. If there are specific passages where Peirce used the word *action *to describe mediation, I would be glad to review and consider them. MB: Picking and choosing which Peirce quotes to insist are the absolute truth while denying the clear language of other quotes is not a good way to advance scholarly discussion. If I have been guilty of this, I would sincerely appreciate being shown where. At least I routinely *provide* Peirce quotes as purported warrant for my claims, rather than simply making bare assertions. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:15 AM, Mike Bergman wrote: > Gary R, Jon, list, > > +1 > > This is another thread that has devolved into silliness. No one is trying > to deny Peirce's technical terms, no one is being obdurate, and no one is > saying anything other than we use natural language to communicate, and it > has vagaries of interpretation. > > We could say that the phrase 'triadic action' approaches being a technical > term, and we cannot deny that Peirce used it, especially in his later years > when supposedly his assertions have more value than his earlier ones. (Not > to mention other references to mediating action which are not specifically > labeled 'triadic action,' which I am sure number many more than two > references.) Furthermore, we can quote about these 'triadic actions' and > then deny them, claiming they are all just 'relations' that should be > expressed as dyadic actions. Picking and choosing which Peirce quotes to > insist are the absolute truth while denying the clear language of other > quotes is not a good way to advance scholarly discussion. > > I will comment no further on this thread. > > Mike > -- > > __ > > Michael K. Bergman > Cognonto Corporation > 319.621.5225skype:michaelkbergmanhttp://cognonto.comhttp://mkbergman.comhttp://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman > __ > > - 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] Peircean research
Triadic action is most probably actions that emerge from following the pragmaticist maxim. Along with expressions, they would be the substance of matters we "go upon", so to speak. That seems to me the point of his philosophy. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Mike Bergman wrote: > Gary R, Jon, list, > > +1 > > This is another thread that has devolved into silliness. No one is trying > to deny Peirce's technical terms, no one is being obdurate, and no one is > saying anything other than we use natural language to communicate, and it > has vagaries of interpretation. > > We could say that the phrase 'triadic action' approaches being a technical > term, and we cannot deny that Peirce used it, especially in his later years > when supposedly his assertions have more value than his earlier ones. (Not > to mention other references to mediating action which are not specifically > labeled 'triadic action,' which I am sure number many more than two > references.) Furthermore, we can quote about these 'triadic actions' and > then deny them, claiming they are all just 'relations' that should be > expressed as dyadic actions. Picking and choosing which Peirce quotes to > insist are the absolute truth while denying the clear language of other > quotes is not a good way to advance scholarly discussion. > > I will comment no further on this thread. > > Mike > > > > On 8/10/2018 8:49 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > JAS, list > > The words of 'action' and 'interaction' are not scientific terms. They are > part of natural language. > > The words of Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness etc ARE scientific terms > because they do refer to a scientific conception and do have single exact > meanings. > > One can use natural language in describing scientific terms - such as 'a > dyadic action' is operative within Secondness. AND, one can say that a > 'triadic action' or a 'manifestation action' is operative in Thirdness. > > I consider, as I said, that the restriction of the use of natural language > within Peircean research and an insistence that the words in natural > language are instead, scientific terms and confined to singular meanings - > inhibits and restricts Peircean research to a small set of cultists. That's > not what Peirce, to me, is all about. > > Edwina > > > > > > > > On Fri 10/08/18 9:40 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > Perhaps you missed my post last night quoting Peirce's own unambiguous > opinion about the merits of exact terminology in all scientific (including > semiotic) inquiry. > > CSP: As to the ideal to be aimed at, it is, in the first place, desirable > for any branch of science that it should have a vocabulary furnishing a > family of cognate words for each scientific conception, and that each > word should have a single exact meaning, unless its different meanings > apply to objects of different categories that can never be mistaken for one > another. To be sure, this requisite might be understood in a sense which > would make it utterly impossible. For every symbol is a living thing, in a > very strict sense that is no mere figure of speech. The body of the symbol > changes slowly, but its meaning inevitably grows, incorporates new elements > and throws off old ones. But the effort of all should be to keep the > essence of every scientific term unchanged and exact; although absolute > exactitude is not so much as conceivable. (CP 2.222, EP 2:264; 1903) > > > This is obviously not a case of someone unfamiliar with Peirce's thought > using natural language on the List and being criticized for it; I am > confident that all of us would be much more charitable than that. However, > I think that it is quite reasonable to expect those who are very familiar > with Peirce's thought to adjust their use of language in List discussions > accordingly, for the sake of clarity and consistency. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky > wrote: > >> Gary R, list >> >> To reject the use of natural language in the study and use of Peirce >> confines this study and use to essentially an isolate cult of specialists. >> No-one else can explore Peirce because they will be jumped on for 'misuse >> of terms'. And so- we see how Peircean analysis becomes confined and owned >> by almost an elite set of people who reject open exploration of Peircean >> semiosic research unless and until the discussants 'use the correct words'. >> It becomes almost an insider's cult, where one focuses on which term to >> use, the year it was introduced, the exact references and so on. That's not >> what I like to see. And I don't think you want to see that either. >> >> There ARE indeed specific technical terms that one has to learn within >> Peircean research - such as the c
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peircean research
Gary R, Jon, list, +1 This is another thread that has devolved into silliness. No one is trying to deny Peirce's technical terms, no one is being obdurate, and no one is saying anything other than we use natural language to communicate, and it has vagaries of interpretation. We could say that the phrase 'triadic action' approaches being a technical term, and we cannot deny that Peirce used it, especially in his later years when supposedly his assertions have more value than his earlier ones. (Not to mention other references to mediating action which are not specifically labeled 'triadic action,' which I am sure number many more than two references.) Furthermore, we can quote about these 'triadic actions' and then deny them, claiming they are all just 'relations' that should be expressed as dyadic actions. Picking and choosing which Peirce quotes to insist are the absolute truth while denying the clear language of other quotes is not a good way to advance scholarly discussion. I will comment no further on this thread. Mike On 8/10/2018 8:49 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: JAS, list The words of 'action' and 'interaction' are not scientific terms. They are part of natural language. The words of Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness etc ARE scientific terms because they do refer to a scientific conception and do have single exact meanings. One can use natural language in describing scientific terms - such as 'a dyadic action' is operative within Secondness. AND, one can say that a 'triadic action' or a 'manifestation action' is operative in Thirdness. I consider, as I said, that the restriction of the use of natural language within Peircean research and an insistence that the words in natural language are instead, scientific terms and confined to singular meanings - inhibits and restricts Peircean research to a small set of cultists. That's not what Peirce, to me, is all about. Edwina On Fri 10/08/18 9:40 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: Edwina, List: Perhaps you missed my post last night quoting Peirce's own unambiguous opinion about the merits of exact terminology in all scientific (including semiotic) inquiry. CSP: As to the ideal to be aimed at, it is, in the first place, desirable for any branch of science that it should have a vocabulary furnishing a family of cognate words for each scientific conception, and that each word should have a single exact meaning, unless its different meanings apply to objects of different categories that can never be mistaken for one another. To be sure, this requisite might be understood in a sense which would make it utterly impossible. For every symbol is a living thing, in a very strict sense that is no mere figure of speech. The body of the symbol changes slowly, but its meaning inevitably grows, incorporates new elements and throws off old ones. But the effort of all should be to keep the essence of every scientific term unchanged and exact; although absolute exactitude is not so much as conceivable. (CP 2.222, EP 2:264; 1903) This is obviously not a case of someone unfamiliar with Peirce's thought using natural language on the List and being criticized for it; I am confident that all of us would be much more charitable than that. However, I think that it is quite reasonable to expect those who are very familiar with Peirce's thought to adjust their use of language in List discussions accordingly, for the sake of clarity and consistency. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Aug
Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peircean research
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
The words of 'action' and 'interaction' are not scientific terms.
They are part of natural language.
The words of Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness etc ARE scientific
terms because they do refer to a scientific conception and do have
single exact meanings.
One can use natural language in describing scientific terms - such
as 'a dyadic action' is operative within Secondness. AND, one can
say that a 'triadic action' or a 'manifestation action' is operative
in Thirdness.
I consider, as I said, that the restriction of the use of natural
language within Peircean research and an insistence that the words in
natural language are instead, scientific terms and confined to
singular meanings - inhibits and restricts Peircean research to a
small set of cultists. That's not what Peirce, to me, is all about.
Edwina
On Fri 10/08/18 9:40 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
Perhaps you missed my post last night quoting Peirce's own
unambiguous opinion about the merits of exact terminology in all
scientific (including semiotic) inquiry.
CSP: As to the ideal to be aimed at, it is, in the first place,
desirable for any branch of science that it should have a vocabulary
furnishing a family of cognate words for each scientific conception,
and that each word should have a single exact meaning, unless its
different meanings apply to objects of different categories that can
never be mistaken for one another. To be sure, this requisite might
be understood in a sense which would make it utterly impossible. For
every symbol is a living thing, in a very strict sense that is no
mere figure of speech. The body of the symbol changes slowly, but its
meaning inevitably grows, incorporates new elements and throws off old
ones. But the effort of all should be to keep the essence of every
scientific term unchanged and exact; although absolute exactitude is
not so much as conceivable. (CP 2.222, EP 2:264; 1903)
This is obviously not a case of someone unfamiliar with Peirce's
thought using natural language on the List and being criticized for
it; I am confident that all of us would be much more charitable than
that. However, I think that it is quite reasonable to expect those
who are very familiar with Peirce's thought to adjust their use of
language in List discussions accordingly, for the sake of clarity and
consistency.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, list
To reject the use of natural language in the study and use of Peirce
confines this study and use to essentially an isolate cult of
specialists. No-one else can explore Peirce because they will be
jumped on for 'misuse of terms'. And so- we see how Peircean analysis
becomes confined and owned by almost an elite set of people who reject
open exploration of Peircean semiosic research unless and until the
discussants 'use the correct words'. It becomes almost an insider's
cult, where one focuses on which term to use, the year it was
introduced, the exact references and so on. That's not what I like to
see. And I don't think you want to see that either.
There ARE indeed specific technical terms that one has to learn
within Peircean research - such as the categories [Firstness,
Secondness, Thirdness and the terms of the parts of the semiosic
action [DO, IO, R, II, DI, FI]…..But to insist that the words we
use in basic common natural language cannot be used - because in
Peirce, they have strictly singular meanings, is, in my view, not
merely isolationist but inhibits the study and use of Peirce.
After all - to say that the word 'action' cannot be used when one is
exploring the pragmatics of Thirdness is, I think, unreasonable. It
denies the FACT that 'something is going on' - and the basic
'something going on' IS an action! A particular action within the
format of Thirdness. JAS informed us that 'what is going on in
Thirdness' is a 'manifestation'. But, in natural language, a
manifestation is AN ACTION!. And yet, we are told that we cannot use
the term.
I also reject the isolation of the term 'semiotics' to purely
intellectual discussions of logic and metaphysica - The field of
semiosis in my view INCLUDES all the pragmatic examination of its
functionality in economics, biology, physics, societal. I disagree
that if one uses the term 'semiotics', then, examples and analysis is
confined to the purely intellectual and not its pragmatic
functionality.
My view is that if someone has a particular personal and research
focus on terminology - fine, that's his focus. But to insist that one
cannot use natural language in the study of Peirce and must instead
move natura
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peircean research
Edwina, List: Perhaps you missed my post last night quoting Peirce's own unambiguous opinion about the merits of exact terminology in all scientific (including semiotic) inquiry. CSP: As to the ideal to be aimed at, it is, in the first place, desirable for any branch of science that it should have a vocabulary furnishing a family of cognate words for each *scientific *conception, and that each word should have a single exact meaning, unless its different meanings apply to objects of different categories that can never be mistaken for one another. To be sure, this requisite might be understood in a sense which would make it utterly impossible. For every symbol is a living thing, in a very strict sense that is no mere figure of speech. The body of the symbol changes slowly, but its meaning inevitably grows, incorporates new elements and throws off old ones. But the effort of all should be to keep the essence of every scientific term unchanged and exact; although absolute exactitude is not so much as conceivable. (CP 2.222, EP 2:264; 1903) This is obviously not a case of someone *unfamiliar *with Peirce's thought using natural language on the List and being criticized for it; I am confident that all of us would be much more charitable than that. However, I think that it is quite reasonable to expect those who are *very familiar* with Peirce's thought to adjust their use of language in List discussions accordingly, for the sake of clarity and consistency. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 8:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Gary R, list > > To reject the use of natural language in the study and use of Peirce > confines this study and use to essentially an isolate cult of specialists. > No-one else can explore Peirce because they will be jumped on for 'misuse > of terms'. And so- we see how Peircean analysis becomes confined and owned > by almost an elite set of people who reject open exploration of Peircean > semiosic research unless and until the discussants 'use the correct words'. > It becomes almost an insider's cult, where one focuses on which term to > use, the year it was introduced, the exact references and so on. That's not > what I like to see. And I don't think you want to see that either. > > There ARE indeed specific technical terms that one has to learn within > Peircean research - such as the categories [Firstness, Secondness, > Thirdness and the terms of the parts of the semiosic action [DO, IO, R, II, > DI, FI]…..But to insist that the words we use in basic common natural > language cannot be used - because in Peirce, they have strictly singular > meanings, is, in my view, not merely isolationist but inhibits the study > and use of Peirce. > > After all - to say that the word 'action' cannot be used when one is > exploring the pragmatics of Thirdness is, I think, unreasonable. It denies > the FACT that 'something is going on' - and the basic 'something going on' > IS an action! A particular action within the format of Thirdness. JAS > informed us that 'what is going on in Thirdness' is a 'manifestation'. But, > in natural language, a manifestation is AN ACTION!. And yet, we are told > that we cannot use the term. > > I also reject the isolation of the term 'semiotics' to purely intellectual > discussions of logic and metaphysica - The field of semiosis in my view > INCLUDES all the pragmatic examination of its functionality in economics, > biology, physics, societal. I disagree that if one uses the term > 'semiotics', then, examples and analysis is confined to the purely > intellectual and not its pragmatic functionality. > > My view is that if someone has a particular personal and research focus on > terminology - fine, that's his focus. But to insist that one cannot use > natural language in the study of Peirce and must instead move natural > language out of its meaning and into 'Peircean-only' usage inhibits and > prevents the use of Peirce in the broader study of what is going on in the > world. I repeat - I consider the Peircean semiosic framework a powerful > analytic tool for examining what is going on - in the real world - and I > think that a 'cultlike hold on language' prevents many people from using > that framework. > > Edwina > > On Thu 09/08/18 11:30 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com sent: > > Mike, Jon, Edwina, List, > > Mike wrote: "Are not 'binding' and 'sense' expressions of action, both > Peirce's words for Thirdness? There are many ways to interpret natural > language, including what is meant by the word 'action'." > > Please offer some context and some textual support for your notion that > 'binding' and 'sense' are employed as expressions of action in any of > Peirce's discussion of 3ns. I think that this is not only highly unlikely, > but actually would contradict most everything he had to say
