But Jon .... I don’t want to go among mad people," ....."Oh, you can’t help
that," said the Cat: "we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad."
"How do you know I’m mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn’t have come here.”
I wouldn't say that I have narrowed the range of what can be said, much less
thought, by using the outline of a function to describe the semiosic
process. I'd say that I have expanded the range of what can be understood as
that process...And also, I've explained the dynamical nature of
semiosis...which is not just a cognitive 'this stands for that' mechanical
placement. It's an actual creation; a creation of a morphological reality -
whether that reality be biological or conceptual.
Grammatical? “Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, 'if it was so, it might
be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's
logic.”
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]>
To: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]>; "Peirce List"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 3:28 PM
Subject: Re: Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
STOI-DIS. Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14561
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14570
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14573
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14577
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14579
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14581
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14584
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14585
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14590
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14595
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14596
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14597
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14599
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14601
Edwina, List,
In semiosis as opposed to sausagosis it is our job to inspect the factory.
Now it's your choice, but if you chews to use the language of mathematics
to describe what you see there then you ought to speak it as she is spoke.
If you chews to formulate the sign-grindings and sign-casings therein in
terms of functions like "f(x) = y", or transformations -- they are really
the same things -- then you have narrowed the range of what you can say
and still be considered grammatical.
I'm just saying ...
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Well, Jon, maybe there is something 'mystical' in it, in that the
mediative transformative Relation of the semiosic triad best operates in
a different temporal and spatial mode than that of the 'existential'
Object and Interpretant. Thirdness - whether 3-3 or 3-2 or 3-1 is a
powerful relation.
But bologna???!!! Now wait a minute. I'm just taking a break from making
dill pickles and sauerkraut (much better, I assure you, than from the
store)....and I won't have something as crass as bologna in my home. No
way.
The point of the function is that it
reduces/filters/rejects/whatever...the potentialities of the Dynamic and
Immediate Object..to ONE Interpretant. Not necessarily the truthful
Interpretant (we all know how observers-at-an-accident each observe
something different)...but..to one rather than many 'I saw what I saw'.
But in this filtering...it transforms..according to the generals of the
Interpreting Agent (which is where Stan's Constructivism probably comes
in)...So, as Peirce said..we don't/can't view the objective world
directly.
Best
Edwina
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Awbrey" <[email protected]>
To: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]>; "Peirce List"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
OK, IC, it's not really a function, it's more like mystical bologna ...
Jon
Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon - Nope, I disagree. You are reducing the nature of a Function to a
linear path. My point is that F or S (in your triad) is not a step in a
path nor is it a cumulative action but is instead a transformative
action. The semiosic 'f' is not empty but 'filled' - with generals,
with universals and thus exerts a transformative agency on X...to
result in a Y that is not identical with X (unless it's a pure
process).
And most certainly this is not behaviouristic stimulus-response -
because, again, that 'F' is a mediative and transformative
function....something that the O-S-I pattern doesn't clearly show.
Edwina
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
