Edwina, List: ET: As I've said repeatedly - the key factor of Peircean semiosis is that it is not mechanical or linear but enables an understanding of complex morphological generation which is enabled by constant transformative RELATIONS between TRIADIC PROCESSES. Again, the full triad is the SIGN. None of the other 'parts' of the triadic SIGN exist 'per se' on their own. They only function - as functions - within the full triadic interaction.
This is what I personally have a hard time recognizing as *Peircean *semeiosis, which is certainly not mechanical or linear--i.e., dyadic--but I understand it to be a matter of *triadic relations*, rather than *relations between triadic processes*. Again, the Sign is not a triadic *function*, it is one participant in an irreducibly triadic *relation*. The Sign (or Representamen), the Object (Dynamic and Immediate), and the Interpretant (Immediate, Dynamic, and Final) are not *themselves *relations, they are all real *subjects* from a logical and metaphysical standpoint. Each of them, as well as their relations *to each other*, can be a constituent of any of the three Universes--a Possible (1ns), an Existent (2ns), or a Necessitant (3ns). The Sign itself is a qualisign/mark, sinsign/token, or legisign/type. The Sign's relation to its Object is what makes it an icon, index, or symbol. The Sign's relation to its Interpretant is what makes it a rheme, dicent, or argument. I find all of this to be fully consistent with a straightforward reading of Peirce's extensive writings on semeiosis. At the risk of being labeled once more as "literal-bound," a quick search of the Collected Papers turns up zero instances of "habit(s) of formation," "morphological generation," "triadic process," or "triadic function." While these are evidently "key factors" in *Taborskyan *semiosis, to me this suggests rather strongly that *Peircean *semeiosis has nothing to do with any of them. On the other hand, "triadic relation" appears 84 times. What is unscientific or arrogant about simply stating what the textual evidence clearly indicates to me? You express just as much certainty about the validity of your views as I do about mine. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Helmut, list - I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a 'fact'. I think > that is introducing another set of semantics into the Peircean framework > and I'm not sure that it has any function. > > Again, the Dynamic Object functions ONLY within the triadic process of > semiosis. It doesn't 'exist' per se. Certainly, objective reality exists > but - within a semiosic process. That insect is objectively 'real', but it > functions within a semiosic process made up of the basic triad: > Object-Representamen-Interpretant. And we can fine-tune that into > Dynamic Object-Immediate Object/Representamen/ Immediate-Dynamic-Final > Interpretants. > > So- the insect, in interaction with the bird watching it - functions as a > Dynamic Object within the bird's awareness of it. And...an Immediate > Object..which is transformed by the bird's 'mind' into an Immediate and > Dynamic Interpretant of 'possible food'. > > But, the insect is itself presenting itself as a Dynamic Interpretant of > the biological processes that resulted in its actual existence as 'that > insect'. > > And of course, the other semiosic processes are included: the habits of > morphological formation held within the Representamen of both the insect > and bird. > > AND - increase the complexity by acknowledging that each 'part' can be in > a different categorical mode [Firstness, Secondness, Thirdness]. > > As I've said repeatedly - the key factor of Peircean semiosis is that it > is not mechanical or linear but enables an understanding of complex > morphological generation which is enabled by constant transformative > RELATIONS between TRIADIC PROCESSES. Again, the full triad is the SIGN. > None of the other 'parts' of the triadic SIGN exist 'per se' on their own. > They only function - as functions - within the full triadic interaction. > > There is no point, in my view, of analyzing Peirce as 'just another set > of terms' used in mapping the semantic movement of one term to another > term. - the key concept in Peirce is that it sets up an infrastructure > enabling complex morphological transformations of 'meaning -to-meaning' . > One morphology to another morphology. > > Someone else who ventured into this area, is Spencer Brown, with his Laws > of Form. As he wrote: > > "the theme of this book is that a universe comes into being when a space > is severed or taken apart. The skin of a living organism cuts off an > outside from an inside. So does the circumference of a circle in a plane. > By tracing the way we represent such a severance, we can begin to > reconstruct, with an accuracy and coverage that appear almost uncanny, the > basic forms underlying linguistic, mathematical, physical, and biological > science, and can being to see how the familiar laws of our own experience > follow inexorably from the original act of severance". [1973:v]. > > Now - that sounds VERY similar to Peirce's cosmological outline [1.412] of > the emergence of the FORMS within the universe. [See his A Guess at the > Riddle]. > > And, as Spencer Brown acknowledges the influence of Peirce - one can see > that influence throughout his remarkable book. > > Edwina >
----------------------------- 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 .
