Gary R, list I appreciate your attempt to bring disparate views together, but I think they must remain – disparate.
For example, I consider that JAS’s view of the universe and mine – are polar opposites. I consider JAS’s outline with its top down framework to be a deterministic, a priori centralized process, ignoring Peirce’s outline of - The formation of the universe from NOTHING [ 1.412,, 6.217, EP2:322] which means – there is no determinism, no specific focus – only a ‘desire’ to be instantiated. – which instantiations are always in a triadic set [EP2;394] - - The reality of Firstness as a basic categorical/organizational mode, which means that freedom and chance are a basic component of the universe. See the element of absolute chance in nature’ 7.514 - - - the reality of Thirdness, which means that self-organization of the ‘instantiations [in Secondness] of the universe operates by means of communal habits which enable both complex networks of relations and continuity of type - which in turn prevents entropic dissipation - - - the reality that Thirdness as the laws of organization evolves and changes, A habit might have evolved by chance [ 7: 521] ‘the first germ of law was an entity, which itself arose by chance, that is as a First”…but, this habit would then become a continuity of organization for[ 7.515 ], “a law can evolve or develop itself…with a ‘generalizing tendency”. See also7.512 ‘the laws of nature are the results of an evolutionary process’..which is ‘still in progress’ 7.514. - - As he writes” the laws of the universe have been formed under a universal tendency of all things toward generalization and habit-taking [7.515]. This means – that these laws are formed within and BY the universe itself as a semiosic process- and- that this is a dynamic of changing process, for, in both cerebral theory and molecular ‘”the non-conservative elements are the predominant ones”.- which makes sense, since the instantiations [ entities organized in Secondness] have finite life spans - - Given this brief outline – my view of the Peircean semiosis is that there is no ‘semiotic whole’ and certainly, no ‘constituent parts’. Instead, the universe is a CAS, a complex adaptive system of energy forming itself into matter,, as triadic instantiations or Signs, within all three categorical modes [1ns, 2ns, 3ns]which are networked with each other …. Edwina > On Oct 1, 2025, at 8:59 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, > > This thread seems to me to have the potential of possibly bridging some of > the conceptual gaps between seemingly very different views regarding basic > understandings of Peirce's semeiotic. So, thanks for introducing it, Gary F. > and for providing links to the very relevant passages in your Turning Signs > from which we read, for example: > > GF: rather than think of meanings as built up from their component parts, we > might better think of them as processes analyzed into those parts for > semiotic purposes. Semiosis, even at the most primitive level, is always a > process which must continue for some time in some direction (toward the > making of some pragmatic difference such as a habit-change). Irreducible > Thirdness is essential to it. With this in mind, Peirce gives a holistic > top-down account of the relations between arguments, propositions and ‘names’ > (i.e. ‘terms’), upending ‘the traditional view that a Proposition is built up > of Names, and an Argument of Propositions.’ > "… an Argument is no more built up of Propositions than a motion is built up > of positions." CSP > > Gary’s initial framing of the discussion as Peirce’s semeiotic holism might > prove to be an important touchstone here reminding us that perceived objects > can themselves be understood as 'artifacts of analysis' in much the same way > that individual signs are abstractions from the general semeiotic flow. > Gary's reference to current neurobiological research provides posteriori > support for Peirce’s insight that at least the perceptual continuum precedes > our analytic parsing of it. > > GF: Unhealthy as it may be for a special interest or subsystem to dominate a > system, there is a kind of temporary dominance which may be necessary for a > complex system to act as a unit. For instance, > > In human as well as nonhuman species, functions seem to be apportioned > asymmetrically to the cerebral hemispheres, for reasons which probably have > to do with the need for one final controller rather than two, when it comes > to choosing an action or a thought. If both sides had equal say on making a > movement, you might end up with a conflict – your right hand might interfere > with the left, and you would have a lesser chance of producing coordinated > patterns of motion involving more than one limb. — Damasio (1994) > . . . . . . . . > . . . it's the left hemisphere's function to ‘break up the holistic fabric > of reality’. In this way neuropsychology confirms Peirce's phenomenology > which puts the wholeness of feelings First and analysis into parts Second. > From this follows Peirce's holistic approach to ‘Logic, or the essence of > Semeiotics.’ > > Jon takes this holism as ontologically fundamental: the universe is not > assembled from elementary sign-units but is 'perfused with signs' within a > vast continuum from which particulars are prescinded. This aligns with > Peirce’s late cosmological vision of the cosmos as 'one immense sign'. In > this view, both perception and reasoning begin as undivided wholes, and terms > and propositions are artifacts of analysis. > > Edwina pushes back against the idea of ontological priority for the whole > stressing Peirce’s realism, that is, that there are real things whose > characters are independent of our opinions, of our analyses. For her, > semiosis is a matter of triadic processes constantly forming and dissolving > real entities that exist for varying durations within a CAS. In her view (if > I'm not mistaken), individuality is emergent, operating through networks of > triadic relations. > > Edwina’s view would seem to resonate with Peirce’s early/middle realism and > the concreteness of triadic relations, while Jon’s view resonates more with > Peirce’s late philosophy (including a cosmology of continuity, universe as > sign, synechism, agapism, etc.) where the holism of semiosis is central. > Still, Edwina is correct, I think, in arguing that Peirce never abandoned his > 'critical' realism about real things and his insistence on the irreducibility > of triadic relations in the generation of these things. In a word, Jon’s > reading stresses Peirce’s synechistic holism, Edwina’s his insistence on real > triadic relations. > > Do Gary F's comments perhaps help bridge these positions? To me they suggest > that Peirce’s holistic semeiotic can be grounded in both phenomenological > analysis and empirical science, that Peirce’s insights can be seen to gel > with contemporary scientific perspectives. Still: > > GF: . . . neuropsychology confirms Peirce's phenomenology which puts the > wholeness of feelings First and analysis into parts Second. From this follows > Peirce's holistic approach to ‘Logic, or the essence of Semeiotics.’ > > Best, > > Gary R > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 5:10 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> 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] >>> <mailto:[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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> . >>> ► <a href="mailto:[email protected] >>> <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] >> <mailto:[email protected]> . >> ► <a href="mailto:[email protected] >> <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.
