List, JAS I continue with my critique of JAS’s outline.
JAS wrote, with reference to Peirce 1] He says in 1903 that for any class where 3ns is predominant, there are subclasses of relatively genuine 3ns, relatively reactional 3ns, and relatively qualitative 3ns. Yes- indeed, but this does not justify the claim that the Interpretants operate in the mode of Thirdness [again – please check out the ten classes and you’ll find only ONE class that has the Interpretant in a mode of 3ns!!!!! And does not justify the claim that the three Interpretants are, operative as II, DI, FI, in modes of 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3. As far as I can see it, there is no justification for such a claim. 2] Peirce also says in 1903 that in any triadic relation, the first correlate (e.g., sign) is the simplest, the second (e.g., object) is of middling complexity, and the third (e.g., interpretant) is the most complex. Again, I’ve explained my concern. These terms [simple, middling complexity, and most complex] do not translate to Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness. Edwina > On Oct 22, 2025, at 1:02 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Gary R., List: > > Again, thanks for your comments, which continue to be spot-on. Perhaps we > should revert to Peirce's own words that loosely express what you suggested > "could be stated better." > > CSP: Metaphysics consists in the results of the absolute acceptance of > logical principles not merely as regulatively valid, but as truths of being. > Accordingly, it is to be assumed that the universe has an explanation, the > function of which, like that of every logical explanation, is to unify its > observed variety. It follows that the root of all being is One; and so far as > different subjects have a common character they partake of an identical > being. (CP 1.487, c. 1896) > > He did not work out his topical conception of continuity and the basics of > his speculative grammar until several years later, and he never quite put > them together as I have, at least not in writing. Nevertheless, I believe > that doing so is faithful to his insights and intentions. After all, logical > principles are semeiotic principles, and unifying the observed variety of the > universe is recognizing its underlying continuity; hence, my metaphysical > hypothesis of semiosic synechism, according to which the one root of all > being--the common character that all subjects possess, by virtue of which > they partake of an identical being--is the being of a sign. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 2:01 AM Gary Richmond <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Jon, List, >> >> This is a kind of addendum to my last post. I hope to take up your 2nd, 3rd, >> and 4th points later, but for now I like to comment on just your first >> point, namely, that semiosic synechism is your own hypothesis. I agree. >> >> The concept semiosic synechism captures something essential in the mature >> development of Peirce's philosophical project: that his ongoing work in >> semeiotic along with his analysis of topical continuity is where the logic >> of signs and the metaphysics of continuity merge (no doubt that could be >> stated better). >> >> I think you'd agree that Peirce had been developing the idea of synechism >> and the reality of continuity since at least the 1880s. Still, it is not >> until his later writings, such as those on the topical conception of >> continuity, that he begins to see continuity as not just as an intriguing >> mathematical idea (as he and most other mathematicians who took it seriously >> did) but, shall we say, he comes to see it as the operative(?) principle of >> 3ns itself, the "vital principle" by which habit, mediation, and law grow >> throughout the universe. "Symbols grow." Hopefully this idea of semiosic >> synechism will someday become not only intelligible through science, >> philosophy, art and all manner of humane disciplines, but effective in our >> lives. Thank you, Jon, for your ongoing contribution to what is certainly at >> least my summum bonum. >> >> Perhaps someday humanity will come to see that the universe’s way of being >> and its way of meaning are one and the same: namely, the continuous flow of >> signs interpreting -- and developing -- signs. >> >> Gary R >> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 12:26 AM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Gary R., List: >>> >>> Thanks for your comments, with which I am almost entirely in agreement. Let >>> me just offer a few important clarifications. >>> >>> First, as I have acknowledged previously, semiosic synechism is my own >>> hypothesis--recognizably Peircean as a direct application of his late >>> topical conception of continuity, but not something that Peirce himself >>> ever explicitly formulated. >>> >>> Second, as I have said over and over, I understand the continuous process >>> of semiosis to be real--it is as it is regardless of what anyone thinks >>> about it, not in any way observer-dependent. However, distinguishing any >>> one individual sign is in my view an act of prescission, deliberately >>> introducing artificial "boundaries" to mark it off from other signs within >>> the semiosic continuum that are otherwise indefinite. Only after we have >>> done this can we go on to identify that sign's dynamical object and that >>> sign's final interpretant, with which it is in a genuine triadic relation, >>> as well as any dynamical interpretants produced by its instances in actual >>> events of semiosis. >>> >>> Third, accordingly, I would not say that semiosis tends toward the general >>> and the continuous--that would be a bottom-up conception. Instead, I >>> maintain that semiosis always already is general and continuous--this is a >>> top-down conception. A discrete event where a dynamical object determines a >>> sign token to determine a dynamical interpretant is a degenerate >>> manifestation of it, just as those three correlates are in a degenerate >>> triadic relation--one that is reducible to the dyadic relations that it >>> involves. In this case, the dynamical object determines the sign token, >>> which determines the dynamical interpretant. >>> >>> Fourth, nevertheless, a top-down conception is not in any way >>> deterministic--it is primarily a matter of final causation, not efficient >>> (or mechanical) causation. "Efficient causation is that kind of causation >>> whereby the parts compose the whole; final causation is that kind of >>> causation whereby the whole calls out its parts" (CP 1.220, 1902). >>> Moreover, "Rationality is being governed by final causes" (CP 2.66, 1902), >>> and "Continuity is of a Rational nature" (LF 3/1:249n6, 1906). >>> >>> 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>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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.
