Thanks for the quotes Jeff
All the best
Claudio
Jeffrey Brian Downard escribió el 30/11/2015 a las 06:33 p.m.:
Hello Claudio, Clark, List,
The idea that one sign may be dominant is nicely highlighted in Peirce's
discussion of focusing attention on one thing and letting others fade into the
background. This ability to focus one's attention is, on Peirce's account,
central to the explanation of how we can exert some degree of self control as
we interpret signs as thoughts. The index serves the function of directing the
attention on one or another object (CP 1.369, 2.256, 2.259, 2.350, 2.428,,
3.434, 4.562, etc.).
--Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
________________________________________
From: Claudio Guerri [claudiogue...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 2:18 PM
To: Stephen C. Rose; Clark Goble
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations
Stephen, Clark, Edwina, List...
I think that I wrote already about this subject... but there are two authors
that I like very much that constructed some good 'metaphors' for the
understanding of the triadic relation.
Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser studied Peirce in a Seminar by Farnçois
Recanati in Paris, France, during the 50's...??? if somebody knows a good
reference, I would be glad to know more about...
Lacan was interested in the unconscious from a psychoanalytic point of view, and he learned that besides his "the
imaginary" (1ness) and "the symbolic" (3ness, both derived from Ferdinand de Sussure's linguistic sign) he had to
add "the real" (2ness) that he defined as "the impossible", « la grimace du réel »... or better (or in a more
perverse way): "what never ceases to not join the symbolic" (the translation from the Spanish version is mine...)
apparently, the French (original version) is. « ce qui ne cesse de ne pas s'écrire »...
I think that it is a good conceptual approach to the Dynamic Object by Peirce.
For that and else... he was expelled from the IPA (International Psychoanalytic
Association)...
Althusser (even if considered a Stalinist by a dear fellow of the Peirce-L) wrote about
the "Social Practice"... and (following Peirce) he proposed: a Theoretical
Practice (1ness), an Economical Practice (2ness) and a Political Practice (3ness).
He did not give a synthetic or unique word to 'baptize' the Theoretical
Practice which I consider 'possibilitant' (following Peirce of course), but he
stated that the Political Practice is always 'decisive' and that the Economical
Practice is 'determinant only in last instance' (I say, because it is the 'real
impossible'... and if you don't believe it, follow what will happen with
Argentina after the 10th of December...). Pitifully, because of his statements,
he was expelled form the PCF (Parti Communiste Français)...
But Althusser also added a good explanation (for the Peircean definition of
sign): normally, one aspect of the sign will be 'dominant'.
Did Peirce say something like that? somewhere?
Taking account of what happened to those two scholars... perhaps the 'triadic
relation' can be a very dangerous subject...!!!???
All the best
Claudio
Stephen C. Rose escribió el 30/11/2015 a las 03:26 p.m.:
Triadic Philosophy as I have evolved it over its lifetime tends to agree in
with what you have said Clark about the triad. With the following exception
which I take to be at least somewhat related to Peirce and perhaps to agree
with something I have seen in Edwina's posts. The triadic progression is the
progression of a sign which originates in the spontanaity of firstness and
proceeds through the obstacles set up in secondness and arrives at the
expressions and actions made possible by the encounter of 1 and 2.
I understand that the premise of Triadic Philosophy, that Reality is all, is
hardly consistent with Peirce.
Books <http://buff.ly/15GfdqU> http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art:
<http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl> http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: <http://buff.ly/1wXADj3> http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Clark Goble
<cl...@lextek.com<mailto:cl...@lextek.com>> wrote:
On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Sungchul Ji
<<mailto:s...@rci.rutgers.edu>s...@rci.rutgers.edu<mailto:s...@rci.rutgers.edu>>
wrote:
f g
Real Rose ----------------> Rose -----------> Mental Rose
(Firstness) (Secondness)
(Thirdness)
[World of Structures] [Physical World] [Mental World]
|
^
|
|
|____________________________________|
h
Peirce’s ontology doesn’t quite follow that. Firstness is the world of raw
experience, ideas or possibility, secondness the world of reactions, brute force
& actuality and thirdness the world of signs, connections and power (not
necessarily mental unless one is careful what one means by that). So depending upon
what one means by structure you’d have that in the third universe.
Again though one has to be careful with terminology and Peirce’s shifts around
a bit over time.
-----------------------------
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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to <mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu> l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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 .
<mailto:claudiogue...@fibertel.com.ar>
<mailto:claudiogue...@fibertel.com.ar>
-----------------------------
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 .