I don't see the triadic in the way you describe which I take to be accurate as a representation of Peirce. That is one reason I have always sought to indicate that what I am presenting is Peirce. I see the third as the sphere of expression and action and call it the Aesthetic realm. I see the second as an ethical index. This is hardly Peirce but It is clearly derived from a notion of the triadic. I see history as mainly binary and conscious progress as triadic because it operates on universal values..
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > I have my doubts about that - i.e., that the 'binary would turn deism > itself into a binary, while the triadic form ..clears the space.. > > The explosion of nominalism in the 13th c was a binaristic rejection of > triadism, with the 'mediation force' defined by the Church as an > essentialist a priori deterministic deity about which only the Church had > access to define and teach. The Peircean triad is completely different, for > the mediative Force, let's say of Thirdness, is a vital part of the > existential entity and not separate - even though it cannot itself be > 'existential'. This is very hard for the non-scientific mindset to deal > with. > > Binarism is political, in that it is either This Force or That Force that > is in power...and both are existential, in various modes of Secondness, > [2-2, 2-1]..and can readily be fought against/for. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> ; Peirce List > <Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2017 10:16 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" > from AI perspective > > THat's a big issue but at least we're talking about it. I would siumply > say that the binary zeitgeist turns deism itself into a binary either while > a triadic form would clear some space for the consideration that Peirce > felt was so vital to the actual betterment of people -- the son he never > had fr example. > > *Peirce: “If I had a son, I should instill into him this view of morality > (that is, that Ethics is the science of the method of bringing Self-Control > to bear to gain satisfaction) and force him to see that there is but one > thing that raises one individual animal above another, — Self-Mastery; and > should teach him that the Will is free only in the sense that, by employing > the proper appliances, he can make himself behave in the way he really > desires to behave. As to what one ought to desire, it is, I should teach > him, what he will desire if he sufficiently considers it, and that will be > to make his life beautiful, admirable. Now the science of the Admirable is > true Esthetics.” (As quoted in Brent, Peirce: A Life, p49).* > > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> I don't think it's that apocalyptic a scenario. Certainly in the >> sciences, such as biology and physics, the triadic mode of functioning is >> vital and I think we are seeing a lot of research that acknowledges this - >> even if it isn't referenced to Peirce. But I don't see such a mindset >> moving that rapidly into the humanities or social science areas. They will >> remain rather firmly binary. >> >> Binary thinking is simple, it is mechanistic, and after all, one of the >> dangers of a triadic format in these areas is that the mediation function >> becomes , so to speak, into a theistic essentialism. >> >> Same with the categories: Thirdness becomes transformed into a theistic >> force. >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> ; Peirce List >> <Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> >> *Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2017 9:04 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" >> from AI perspective >> >> Which makes it more imperative than ever that a way be found to make the >> triadic mode more understandable and to say why it is infinitely superior >> to binary thinking. Without it we perish. This is NOT an academic matter. >> >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> I don't find that it's the terms that slow down the use of Peirce in >>> analysis; I find that it's the concept of a triadic semiosis with that >>> vital mediation, and the concept of the three modal categories. Both seem >>> very hard for people to grasp - and so, semiotics is reduced to the >>> simplistic binarism of Saussurian semiology, which focuses only on >>> individual units, and searches for their 'hidden', almost Freudian meanings >>> of 'This'..Stands For..That'. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net> >>> To: <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 9:23 PM >>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" >>> from AI perspective >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/8/2017 12:31 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >>>> >>>>> The three triads of CSP, >>>>> qualisign, sinsign, legisign; >>>>> icon, index, symbol; >>>>> rhema, dicisign, argument, >>>>> can be, in my opinion, a “recipe” for realism; that is, the logical >>>>> association of antecedent observations (Qualisigns with logical >>>>> consequences (legisigns)) What I find exceedingly curious about the >>>>> (strange) words of this table is that only the last word, “argument” is >>>>> used in logic. The other eight words are merely dictionary words. >>>>> Clearly, some similarity with 21 st Century AI exists in these three >>>>> 19th Century triads. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have discussed, written about, and lectured on Peirce's semiotic >>>> to various audiences -- mostly in AI and cognitive science. His >>>> terminology is indeed a deterrent for many people. >>>> >>>> One wonders why CSP’s three triads have not been adopted. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The words qualisign, sinsign, legisign, rhema, and dicisign have >>>> no chance of being accepted. Even Peirce scholars use them only >>>> when discussing Peirce's writings. >>>> >>>> The triad of icon, index, and symbol is the most widely recognized, >>>> cited, and used -- partly because the words are more common. Peirce's >>>> terms 'type' and 'token' are widely used even by people who have no >>>> idea where they came from. And the words 'predicate' and 'proposition' >>>> are common in logic. >>>> >>>> For teaching Peirce's semiotic, I therefore recommend that those >>>> five words should be replaced with terms that CSP himself used: >>>> >>>> mark, token, type; >>>> icon, index, symbol; >>>> predicate, proposition, argument. >>>> >>>> See Figure 2, page 5 of "Signs and reality": >>>> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signs.pdf >>>> >>>> For example, consider an index of species. >>>>> >>>>> Is it real? >>>>> Or, ideal? >>>>> >>>> >>>> For both a nominalist and a realist, an index is something >>>> observable: a pointing finger, a pronoun in speech or writing, >>>> or a physical occurrence of some kind. >>>> >>>> But a species is a type, which is determined by some law >>>> of nature. A realist would say that the law is real. >>>> But a nominalist would say that a law is merely a pattern >>>> of words that summarize some observational data. >>>> >>>> In short, both nominalists and realists could use the nine >>>> terms above in practical applications. They would often >>>> reach the same conclusions, but they would disagree about >>>> the existence of referents for the words in the third column. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 > . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
