Auke, list:
I think what you just said is expressible by seeking explanations for same/different in the following: “Only *everybody* can know the truth.” ~Goethe, more or less… “The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real.” ~Peirce _______ As to the individual/community issue, here is an excerpt from Peirce, “…*the progress of science cannot go far except by collaboration; or, to speak more accurately, no mind can take one step without the aid of other minds*.”… I don’t think this has to be taken literally (since education of young and old), but it does speak to the reality of how complicated knowledge is, nowadays. Regardless, the community cannot be happy without individuals of that community; us and our neighbors. We seek to do well and by doing well, to fare well. What better than to know something of great benefit to mankind and to share it? But how to share it when a single method *appears* to lead to different convictions about problems and solutions? I think this is implied of your statement: “It is my contention that although Peirce had a keen eye on both strains of thought and enterprise, he was hampered in building a system of semiotics by his preference for the communal or scientific ideal.” I tend to think he *succeeded* but to say this is a statement of more or less. More or less, depending on to what you are looking. Semiotic or abduction? …Or abduction using semiotic? Or abduction using computation?... Or abduction using experimentation?… Or abduction using experimentation and computation and semiotic… Which are all ways of saying abduction…. Or experimentation… or semiosis… or science… or…. Best, Jerry R On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote: > Jerry, > > > > I don’t grasp your point. Especially the introduction of the individual > (whether as a singular or an atom?) escapes my understanding. > > > > With regard to your remark about the community knowing and science, I just > remark that in my opinion the community knowing is only a sub-section of > the community acting in pursuit of personal and individual goals. In the > indefinite truth, research being pushed far enough, it may be that truth > prevails, on the short term, I myself just experienced some hazards along > that way. It is my contention that although Peirce had a keen eye on both > strains of thought and enterprise, he was hampered in building a system of > semiotics by his preference for the communal or scientific ideal. For, a > sustem of semiotics must not only account for the scientific enterprise, > but also for our day to day communication, not regulated by a knowledge > ideal, but by other interests. > > > > Best, Auke > > > > *Van:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] > *Verzonden:* zondag 23 oktober 2016 21:27 > *Aan:* Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> > *CC:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Onderwerp:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > > > Auke, Kirsti, list: > > > > You said: > > AvB: For me it is the interplay of all. After Aristotle, in the order of > things firstness is first, in the order of knowledge secondness is first. I > would add, in the order of understanding thirdness is first… > > > > But Aristotle also said: > > “*For learning proceeds for all in this way-through that which is less > knowable by nature to that which is more knowable; and just as in conduct > our task is to start from what is good for each and make what is without > qualification good good for each, so it is our task to start from what is > more knowable to oneself and make what is knowable by nature knowable to > oneself.*” > > > > Moreover, Peirce’s theory is not simply about the individual, since the > individual affects the multitude, but in so far as it is about science, it > is also about the community knowing. > > > > So whether knowable to oneself, the individual, can even not matter to the > community. This, I know. > > > > Best, > Jerry Rhee > > > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> > wrote: > > Dear Kirsti, > > As in our past exchanges I value your response and its tone of voice. In > discussions I always try to be short as possible. Maybe this time to my > detriment. I do thank you for te opportunity you offer to try to become > more clear. > > I will add some words between the lines. > > K: > Dear Auke & al. > > It seems to me that you are on the right tract, but in a way CSP did not > share. And going along a tract, wich leads nowhere. > -- > > AvB: If your criticism holds, I agree. > > > K: > Although the main interest of CSP lied in science, his starting point was > "babes and suclings", (just google this) As have been mine, even before I > had any knowledge whatsoever of Peirce. > > This is were my work, since 1970's comes in. In English their is not much > to rely on. See, however, my astract for Applying Peirde conference, at > Helsinki 2007. Available in internet.I have provided Eugene Halton with the > handout in the conference. Which he has quoted several times. Lately in a > book chapter of his. > > The problem with your approach, as with almost all others, lies in taking > ADULTS as the starting point. And then taking science as the the more > restricted starting point. - No one, however is bourn as *a Fichtean > philosopher* , as Marx end Engels pointed out, nor as an adult, nor as a > scientist. > > Firstness comes first. Both in real life, in metaphysics and in semiotics. > - C.S Peirce did not cherish this händicap. > > -- > AvB: I do not think here we disagree, at least on this level of detail of > discussing matters. His animal examples show that he even didn’t confine to > childhood, but extended the thought to an evolutionary scale. With his > distinction between a logica utens and a logica docens and his > architectonic of sciences, each of the cenoscopic sciences preceding the > special sciences and being devoted to: > About positive phenomena in general, such as are available to every person > at every waking moment, and not about special classes of phenomena. Does > not resort to special experiences or experiments in order to settle > theoretical questions. > > What I did intend to state is that it is when we look at a sign that > inscribes itself, the question of the connection between the two divisions > of interpretants comes into clear sight. For, I would add now, it is then > that we must ask for the connection between both trichotomies of > interpretants. > If Peirce wouldn't have been of the opinion that nothing is lost if we > don't pay attention to the > apprehension of the sign as an object, cf 8.2.1, he, as a consequence, > probably > could have made the same arrangement as Van Driel, which is the > arrangement I propose. > > K: > Sheets of assertion serve as ground (in the more general sense) only > within teh system of existential graphs. Which is the only mode of graphs > CSP comleted to his satifaction. > > It does not, however, follow that he consided them to be the key, the part > and parcel of his diagrammatic method. > > It is just the easest to grasp for in cultural cnditions where > nominalistic ways of thought retain the upper händ. > -- > AvB: agreed. I did not argue that. We always must keep the distinction > between an utens and a docens in mind. The existential graphs are part of > the docens, as an (iconic) reflection on the utens of reasoning. De > Tienne's sheets of description (phenomenology), if possible to shape > diagrammatical, will be different. As is our (besides me, Sarbo and Farkas) > diagrammatic KiF-proposal for semiotics. To my great surprise, and thanks > to the late Irving Anellis, Peirce anticipated our proposal with his x-box > arrangement of the 16 Boolean relations, arranged from FFFF to TTTT . This > passage from primordial soup to a response only makes sense if it is > conceived as a process, the response mediating state and effect. The > process in between being triadic in itself. But, of course, my "self" image > may be at fault. > > > K: > Eugene Halton has written an excellent paper on Peirce and the distorted > view Morris spread around early on. The article titled " Situation, > Structure and ... * I also find valid´, even excellent. > -- > > AvB: I indicated some of Morris' distortions short in my "The semiotic > Framework: Peirce and Stamper". Many early bird information scientists were > introduced to Peircean semiotics through Morris, as Ronald Stamper and his > group was. I experience my talks with them as an exchange between > fundamental research and application. In use of technical terminology we > may differ, in way of looking, the similarities prevail. Also in mastery of > semiotics a subdivision between docens and utens can be made. The utens > pointing the way for the docens or at least delivering content. > > K: > I personally came across the dominance of Secondness by makind a thorough > inspection on Umberto Eco and his references to Collected Papers in his > book Theory of Semiotics. I was to make a selection for a study cirle on > CSP. Quite a reluctant one, for that matter. It was late 1970's. > > It was only later that I realized how narrow and misleading was Eco's > presentation. - It still seems to have the upper hand. In one form or > another. > > Existential graphs are all about Secondness. The other parts never got > completed by CSP. Not even outlined, at leasta in the selections so far > published. > --- > > AvB: For me it is more important that the existential graphs have an > alpha, a beta and a gamma part, and that semiotics has a small > classification with ten sign types, a middle with 28 and a Welby > classification with 66 sign types. Of which Bernard Morand has argued that > the small classification is part and parcel of the extended. Which suggests > an alpha, beta and gamma part of semiotics. An idea that makes sense to me > if I contemplate: 1. The sheet as a sign with a description of its > triadically arranged sign aspects in a dependency structure. 2. The sheet > as a sign that gets inscribed by another sign and the process that leads to > a response (knowledge). And 3. The sign interacting with another sign > capable of interpretation in communication. > > K: > All serious, devoted Peirceans know that triadicity forms the key to all > Peircean thought. No taking Secondness as the one and only. > -- > > AvB: For me it is the interplay of all. After Aristotle, in the order of > things firstness is first, in the order of knowledge secondness is first. I > would add, in the order of understanding thirdness is first, in that it is > the triadically structured description of the process of dyadically related > and interacting states and events, that must account for the response. Our > KiF-model is a proposal. The relation between the two divisions of > interpretants was key for me. The approach of Short and Stamper were the > trigger. > > > K: > With you, Auke, I have had some rewarding exchange of communication early > on, after I joined the List. > > This is why I take this time to comment your post. - You do as you wish. > - I'll do the same after reading your response. If so happens that you'll > write one. > -- > AvB > I do thank you for your responses and wish you all the best! > > Auke van Breemen > > > > > > > My very best wishes to you! > > Kirsti Määttänen > > > > > > > > > > > Auke van Breemen kirjoitti 20.10.2016 13:11: > > Jon, > > > > Thanks for your questions. Some short answers below. > > > > With regard to sheets I suggest to read for > > > > a. Sheets of assertion: > > > > Zeman, J. (1977). Peirce's Theory of Signs. In T. A. Seboek (Ed.), A > > Perfusion > > > > of Signs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. > > > > b. Descriptive sheets > > > > De Tienne: > > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/detienne/isphanscie > > nce.pdf > > [1] > > > > c. Semiotic sheet, for a first orientation my 2007 paper will do. > > > > _The relevance of the concept semiotic sheet for the current > > discussion._ > > > > A signs gives rise to its interpretant sign. Lets picture this as > > follows: > > > > Sign -proces of interpretation- interpretant/sign -proces of > > interpretation- interpretant/sign – I/S – I/S, etc. > > > > Short is interested in sign types and focusses on the > > interpretant/sign. My interest is in the intermediate processes > > between two signs. In order to get a run of an interpretation process > > an interpreting system (of whatever nature) must be assumed. Lets > > reserve the term ‘semiotic sheet’ for this interpreting system. > > This interpreting system is a sign itself, cf Peirce’s dictum ‘Man is > > a sign’. So, interpretation starts when a sign inscribes itself in an > > interpreting sign or semiotic sheet. > > > > (1) Looked at as a first, in itself, we have the radical subjectivist > > (Stamper) or phenomenological view (architectonic of sciences). > > > > (2) Looked at as a second, as related to a sign that inscribes itself, > > we have the actualist (Stamper) or semiotic view, (architectonic of > > sciences). But only to the extend that an interpreting system > > interprets a sign (critic). > > > > (3) Looked at as a thirdness, we have the rhetorical part of > > semiotics. Stamper, being in his 80ies, started back then from Morris > > and didn’t get a clear view on this communicative view on the matter. > > Here we are concerned with two sheets conversing with each other (a,b > > -> goal of a and b,a -> goal of b). > > > > The connection between the two trichotomies of interpretants > > (emotional, energetic and logical; fruit of phenomenological or > > radical subjectivist considerations) and iimmediate, dynamical and > > normal interpretants; fruit of semiotics proper) can be established in > > 2. It sets of with > > > > Kant gives the erroneous view that ideas are presented separated and > > then thought together > > > > by the mind. This is his doctrine that a mental synthesis precedes > > every analysis. > > > > What really happens is that something is presented which in itself has > > no parts, but which > > > > nevertheless is analyzed by the mind, that is to say, its having parts > > consists in this that the > > > > mind afterward recognizes those parts in it. Those partial ideas are > > really not in the first > > > > idea, in itself, though they are separated out from it. It is a case > > of destructive distillation. > > > > W6:449, CP 1.384 > > > > So, interpretation sets of with a collection of qualia. In > > phaneroscopy it is called the phaneren, in semiotics it is termed the > > emotional interpretant: > > > > The first proper significate effect of a sign is a feeling produced by > > it > > > > [. . . ]. It [a tune; AvB] conveys, and is intended to convey, the > > composer's > > > > musical ideas; but these usually consist merely in a series of > > feelings (CP > > > > 5.475). > > > > From this further interpretants may evolve. First the energetive > > interpretants (mental, physical), next the logical (immediate, > > dynamical and normal). > > > > In short: The semiotic sheet is needed if we want to get a hold on the > > process of interpretation. > > > > Best, Auke > > > > VAN: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > > VERZONDEN: woensdag 19 oktober 2016 21:18 > > AAN: Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> > > CC: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > > ONDERWERP: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > > Cosmology) > > > > Auke, List: > > > >> AB: As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no > >> conclusions. > > > > Yes, Peirce was right to call himself "a pioneer, or rather a > > backwoodsman, in the work of clearing and opening up what I call > > semiotic" (CP 5.488; 1907). > > > >> AB: I in particular disagree with your: "However, as I have suggested > >> previously, the three Interpretants themselves seem to be more > >> properly characterized as possible (Immediate), actual (Dynamic), and > >> habitual (Final), with each divided into feeling/action/thought." > > > > It is a working hypothesis, at best. I am certainly open to being > > convinced otherwise. > > > >> AB: It disregards the possibility of the sheet of description (De > >> Tienne) and a sheet of semiosis (Breemen/Sarbo) as related to each > >> other according to the mature division of the sciences. > > > > I am not too familiar with these concepts and would like to learn more > > about them, so I will review your 2007 paper, which I apparently > > downloaded a while ago. Would you mind elaborating their specific > > relevance to the current discussion, and perhaps suggest some > > additional reading that I could do? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > > > > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > > > > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > [3] > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Auke van Breemen > > <a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote: > > > >> Jon, > >> > >> As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no > >> conclusions. The EP only gives a fragment of the groping. As much of > >> his other writings gives a lot more fragments. It may be that only > >> not being able to regard the blackboard (or in its mundane character > >> the sheets of Assertion, description or semiotics as a sign) that > >> prevented him from finishing the system. All ingredients are present. > >> > >> I in particular disagree with your: > >> > >> ." However, as I have suggested previously, the three Interpretants > >> _themselves _seem to be more properly characterized as possible > >> (Immediate), actual (Dynamic), and habitual (Final), with each > >> divided into feeling/action/thought. > >> > >> -- > >> > >> This is the Short arrangement of both trichotomies of interpretants. > >> It disregards the possibility of the sheet of description (De > >> Tienne) and a sheet of semiosis (Breemen/Sarbo) as related to each > >> other according to the mature division of the sciences. From a sign > >> type perspective Shorts approach makes sense: Each sign has an > >> element of feeling of action and of thought, but from a processual > >> approach it is better to apply Ockham’s razor in order to find the > >> system behind processes of interpretation. Peirce paved the way for > >> that by his notion of involvement. The logical note books are key, in > >> combination with Shorts (or Stampers implied) criticism of Peirce’s > >> focus on scientific progress in developing a theory of > >> interpretation. (Cf personal, scientific and practical needs that > >> govern comunication). > >> > >> Best, Auke van Breemen > > > > ------------------------- > > > > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com [4] > > Versie: 2016.0.7859 / Virusdatabase: 4664/13235 - datum van uitgifte: > > 10/18/16 > > > > Links: > > ------ > > [1] > > http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/detienne/isphanscie > > > nce.pdf [2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > > [3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > [4] http://www.avg.com > > > > ----- > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 2016.0.7859 / Virusdatabase: 4664/13258 - datum van uitgifte: > 10/23/16 > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. > Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com > Versie: 2016.0.7859 / Virusdatabase: 4664/13255 - datum van uitgifte: > 10/22/16 >
----------------------------- 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 .
