List I disagree with the outline
the semeiotic whole is ontologically prior to its constituent parts (top-down); not the other way around, as if the former were assembled from the latter as its basic units in the reductionist sense (bottom-up). The entire universe is not composed of individual signs as its building blocks, it is instead perfused with signs (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906)--a vast symbol that involves indices and icons (CP 5.119, EP 2:193-4, 1903). The above, in my view, is moving into romantic mysticism. In my understanding of Peirce’s semiosis, the universe, as a semiotic whole is not ontologically prior to its constituents, but is instead, totally composed in the ‘here and now’ of its constituent parts – which are triadic sets- functioning as semiosic processes. There is neither an ontological prior nor post reality; ie, no top down nor bottom up. . Instead, as Peirce wrote, “There are Real things, whose characters are entirely independent of our opinions about them’..5.384. We must acknowledge this. This does not mean that individual entities exist ‘per se’ in the atomic materialist sense – which has long been debunked. Instead, it acknowledges that this semiosic universe operates as energy/matter constantly forming existentially distinct units. Each entity- which actually has a morphology of a triadic- hexadic set of relations- may last as such for a nanosecond to a hundred, thousands of years ; eg, an atom, a tree, a mountain… When we examine individuality further in its indexicality, we see how the individual unit operates only within a network of relations with other ‘individual entities’ – which relationships can be outlined in any of the ten basic classes of triads, or the more complex 28 hexadic relationships. What does this mean? To me it means that the universe is a CAS, a complex adaptive system, a self-organized phaneron of energy-as-matter [aka signs], constantly developing new individual entities, operating within habits -of-morphological organization, which habits themselves evolve and adapt. The purpose? I’m afraid I go no further than ‘to prevent entropic dissipation of energy. ..and this is not an ’ontologically prior agenda’. Edwina > On Oct 1, 2025, at 1:57 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Gary F., List: > > I appreciate the subject line, emphasizing that the semeiotic whole is > ontologically prior to its constituent parts (top-down); not the other way > around, as if the former were assembled from the latter as its basic units in > the reductionist sense (bottom-up). The entire universe is not composed of > individual signs as its building blocks, it is instead perfused with signs > (CP 5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906)--a vast symbol that involves indices and icons > (CP 5.119, EP 2:193-4, 1903). > > I have indeed regularly quoted that 1906 passage in R 295 (finally published > at LF 3/1:234-5) to support my conception of the universe as one immense > sign, a semiosic continuum, an ongoing inferential process--an argument from > which we prescind facts as represented by propositions using names, those > "smaller" signs thus being artifacts of analysis along with their associated > objects and interpretants (see also CP 2.27, 1902). I also maintain that > perception is likewise an undivided whole from which we prescind predicates, > hypostasize some of them into subjects, and attribute others to those > subjects in propositions, namely, perceptual judgments-- "the first premisses > of all our reasonings" (CP 5.116, EP 2:191, 1903). I provide a few quotations > from Peirce to support that understanding in section 3.5 of my "Semiosic > Synechism" paper (https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHSSA-42.pdf). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 11:38 AM <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> If I may, I’d like to move on to some a posteriori reasoning (i.e. evidence >> from the “positive sciences” of phenomenology, neuropsychology and biology) >> that seems to support aspects of Peirce’s category-based semeiotics. >> >> Helmut, some time ago you expressed some skepticism about my remark in a >> post that perceived objects are “artifacts of analysis” just as signs are. I >> didn’t have the time to clarify what I meant back then, but perhaps I can >> make up for that now, by offering this link: >> https://gnusystems.ca/TS/scp.htm#csptd . >> >> I’m sure that 1906 passage has been cited here before (probably by JAS), but >> not the neurobiological work that supports it, which begins here: >> https://gnusystems.ca/TS/sdg.htm#x13 . That passage from Turning Signs also >> links to the one above. >> >> Love, gary f >> >> Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> > . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, > then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
