Look, how in secondary literature the ten classes of signs are explained: The interpretant is always something very far in the past, just as the common sense of something that is interpreted. Well, it- the interpretant- adresses something from the past, but actually it appears in the very present, or as the thing most forward in time- in the interpreters mind. So, for me it is not easy to think straight without thinking about thinking, and thus always hopping forward and backward in time. Is there a one-way to truth by following a pragmatic maxim, without the need of rethinking and confirmation and the confusion it causes?
Von: "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
Von: "Stephen C. Rose" <stever...@gmail.com>
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 <h.raul...@gmx.de> 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.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/1wXAxblGifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> 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.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.----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxblGifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> 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, HelmutGesendet: Sonntag, 10. Mai 2015 um 04:19 Uhr
Von: "Sungchul Ji" <s...@rci.rutgers.edu>
An: PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Cc: biosemiotics <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee>
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] Can it be that God is irreducibly triadic, a Peircean sign, and a mathematical category ?Hi,----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .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 gGod as Possibility ------> God as Actuality -------> God as Regularity
(Firstness) (Secondness) (Thirdness)
[Object] [Representamen] [Interpretant]| ^
| |
|________________________________________|hFigure 1. The hypothesis that God is irreducibly triadic and hence is aPeircean 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
