Personally I take continuity literally. Nothing goes back. Truth even is a continuous process. So a triad begins for me with 1 and goes to 2 and eventuates in 3 which I see as the end result or sum of the consideration in the pragmatic maxim. In effect the fruits by which we are known.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Sounds right to me. Maybe the question, which is firstness and which is > thirdness, or which is representamen and which is interpretant, depends on > whether one is looking at a process as it is happening or its > reconstruction, that is, whether one is going parallel with time with his > or her thoughts, or back in time. Same with symbol and icon, maybe. The way > you have explained it, I think, goes parallel with time. The other way of > looking at it, from now into the past, might be: The symbolic perception, > that is the mental reconstruction of God, theology, is only possible for > creatures, who have a language, and so are capable of understanding > symbols, so the Creator for them rather is a symbol, thirdness. While > Spirit also is to be seen in plants and insects. But thinking parallel with > time, it is different: Creation (and so also the Creator) is at first > possibilty, firstness- like a good father, who does never limit the > possibilities of his children, but rather gives them all possibilities they > need and want. So- You have convinced me, and I agree. And I think, this is > a problem of semiotics: A sign goes always both ways, along with time and > backwards. Now this is complicated. > > > *Von:* "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> > > The First has the mystery and vagueness I would associate with cosmic > creation (aka fatherhood), the Second Jesus 's teaching I would see as a > challenge aka Index Blunt Truth, and Third the Spirit -- the quality of > consciousness that I would associate with a capacity for mindful human > action in light of the encounter of 1 and 2. > > Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl > Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 > > On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi Stephen! But why not assign Father, Son and Holy Spirit to Symbol, >> Index and Icon (3,2,1)? Because "Eyes to see and ears to hear" to me seems >> the way an icon is perceived at first. >> >> *Von:* "Stephen C. Rose" <[email protected]> >> >> The classic Christian Trinity triad is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. >> Icon Index Symbol > Creator, Incarnation, Gift of the Spirit to those with >> eyes to see and ears to hear. >> >> Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl >> Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3 >> >> On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sung, Lists, >>> I so far rather think, that firstness is associated to representamen, >>> and secondness to object. So I propose the following assignment, though >>> just in the context of the christian God (because in christian religion >>> there is already a triad, the trinity, which, I think, is ancient >>> semiotics, a quite Peircean approach, long before Peirce): >>> Firstness: Representamen relation, possibility: Holy Spirit. What >>> spirits usually do is appear, and so they are representamens, because >>> representamens also appear and with their appearance they create a >>> possibility for whatever to happen next. >>> Secondness: Object relation, actuality, in this case indexical: Jesus, >>> whose (said) descent from both a human (Mary), and God, is supposed to be >>> working as an actual index (to humans) for the actual connection between >>> God and Humans. >>> Thirdness: Interpretant relation, Relation: God as creator or, in other >>> words, ground of evolution as well as aim of evolution (By this translation >>> "in other words" I want to stress, that I am not agreeing with creationism). >>> In other religions I think there are also such irreducible triads, like >>> Sat, Cit, Ananda, but also dyads like Mazda-Ariman. I think it is all not >>> reality but a matter of trying to find models for reality, and it is >>> interesting to look for quasi-Peircean models in religions. On the other >>> hand I am aware, that Peirce himself has interpreted the trinity and >>> assigned its parts differently than I just did. Which makes me insecure, >>> but I post it although, as it is not a theory to be stated, but only a >>> proposal in the work and discussion in progress, as always. >>> Best, Helmut >>> >>> *Gesendet:* Sonntag, 10. Mai 2015 um 04:19 Uhr >>> *Von:* "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> >>> *An:* PEIRCE-L <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* biosemiotics <[email protected]> >>> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L] Can it be that God is irreducibly triadic, a >>> Peircean sign, and a mathematical category ? >>> Hi, >>> >>> There are many definitions of God or its equivalents (Substance, Form, >>> Dao, Gnergy, etc.) but all of these abstract nouns may share one thing in >>> common, namely, the IRREDUCIBLE TRIADICITY. That is, these concepts may >>> not be completely described without employing three mutually linked terms, >>> concepts, or principles, like Borromean rings. This idea can be >>> diagrammatically represented as follows, which I hope is self-explanatory: >>> >>> >>> >>> f g >>> God as Possibility ------> God as Actuality -------> God as Regularity >>> (Firstness) (Secondness) >>> (Thirdness) >>> [Object] [Representamen] >>> [Interpretant] >>> | >>> ^ >>> | >>> | >>> |________________________________________| >>> h >>> >>> Figure 1. The hypothesis that God is irreducibly triadic and hence is a >>> Peircean sign as well as a mathematical category. f = ontogenesis (?); >>> g = epistogenesis (?); h = grounding, proof, truth (?) >>> >>> >>> In the Peirce-L post dated May 8, 2015, I also suggested that Mind may >>> be irreducibly triadic, and Mind may be a prerequisite for Step g above. >>> >>> If you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms, let me know. >>> >>> All the best. >>> >>> >>> Sung >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. >>> >>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology >>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy >>> Rutgers University >>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 >>> 732-445-4701 >>> >>> www.conformon.net >>> ----------------------------- 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 . >>> >>> >>> ----------------------------- >>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> ----------------------------- 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 . >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
