Clark - OK - I'll put in a long comment here on how I see the
non-philosophical aspects of Peirce's work. Thanks for your
encouragement to do so.
Basic axioms: that our universe operates as
energy-transforming-to-matter, or ‘things’ [Peirce used the term
‘things’ often] via semiosic actions.
*
The emergence of Matter: Peirce: 1.412 “out of the womb of
indeterminacy, we must say that there would have come something, by
the principle of Firstness, which we may call a flash. Then by the
principle of habit there would have been a second flash…..” The
point here is that matter emerged as differentiated and also, as then
connected by habits and by kinetic interaction.
The origin of Material matter: 1.362 “the starting point of the
universe, God the Creator is the Absolute First; the terminus of the
universe, God completely revealed, is the Absolute Second; every
state of the universe at a measurable point of time is the
third……..If your creed is that the whole universe is approaching
in the infinitely distance future a state having a general character
different from that toward which we look back in the infinitely
distance past, you make the absolute to consist in two distinct real
points and are an evolutionist”
I consider the term ‘God’ to be a synonym for Mind. See
Peirce’s analysis – and I’ll only refer to a few:
“Mind is a propositional function of the widest possible universe,
such that its values are the meanings of all signs whose actual
effects are in effective interconnection” [ 4.550].
NOTE: I note the term function which to me suggests that Mind is an
action and a process. I note also the term signs which to me cannot
refer simply to the representamen but to the whole articulated triad.
4.551: “Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It
appears in the work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely
physical world”….But as there cannot be a General without
Instances embodying it, so there cannot be thought without Signs. “
Note: Sign is capitalized in the original. And Peirce also suggests
being careful lest we set up a “danger that our system may not
represent every variety of non-human thought”. I take this to mean
that his system is intended to represent every variety of non-human
thought – and therefore, one does not require to go FIRST to the
study of human thought to understand and use Peircean semiosis in the
non-human realm. And I note his comments on protoplasm and crystals
etc – which I won’t repeat here as the post would be too long -
and it's already long enough!
Therefore, the Absolute First, understood as Feeling, but not the
sensational view of that term, but as a primeval Will. [Again- I can
find the reference..]
*
The starting point as Symbol: Certainly, one can define this
original Mind as a type of symbol – but not the human understanding
of the term which puts it in a mode of Thirdness or art-i-factual, but
I understand it as will, or desire to continuity of that material
existence without the awareness of this existence; and the nature of
this existence is, as evolutionary, open in its expression. Therefore
it is not an iconic or indexical mode of articulation which would
reject diversity and spontaneity of new forms and complexity but
symbolic in that the articulation is free and open.
*
I understand these ‘things’ as having, necessarily FORM. The
form, which sets up a differential boundary, sets matter up in a mode
of Secondness, which is stabilized by the habits-of-formation of
Thirdness.
I won’t go into the many references to Secondness in Peirce’s
work - since there are so many – but it is obvious that matter
within a mode of Secondness MUST have a differential FORM – or it
would be unable to carry out the key action of Secondness, which is
– to interact.
*
The method of this movement from pure Mind [pure energy] to
particular Matter – is by the triadic process of the Sign, which I
understand as irreducibly triadic.
“I will sketch a proof that the idea of meaning is irreducible to
those of quality and reaction. It depends on two main premises. The
first is that every genuine triadic relation involves meaning, as
meaning is obviously a triadic relation. The second is that a triadic
relation is inexpressible by means of dyadic relations alone”. 1.345
Now – with regard to the above, my interpretation is that pure
Mind in that mode of Firstness or potentiality – transforming to
matter is an ‘act of meaning’. And, Peirce says that such a
method of so doing is triadic. It must involve three ‘nodes’ so
to speak: the Object-Representamen-Interpretant’. Then, I am aware
that many on this list understand the semiosic action as ‘the
sign/representamen’ in a relation with the Object and the
Interpretant. I reject this interpretation for two reasons. First –
the interaction of the Representamen-Object can be and usually is, in
a different categorical mode than the relation with the Interpretant.
Second – if one does not acknowledge this capacity for modal
differences, it reduces the interaction to ‘dyadic relations’.
Therefore, I follow the graph with three tails as outlined in 1.347.
This of course enables complex networking, where a Dynamic
Interpretant in one triad can function as the Dynamic Object in
another triad.
I feel that these basic axioms enable one to explore the
physico-chemical and biological realms as complex semiosic processes.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Thu 30/03/17 5:42 PM , CLARK GOBLE cl...@lextek.com sent:
On Mar 30, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
So- given the make-up of the posters on this list and their interest
[in philosophy] then, I don't see the point of bringing up the
non-philosophical focus of Peirce's work.
I should note that while my own interests are primarily
philosophical, my background is actual primarily physics not
philosophy. I enjoy the non-philosophical topics quite a bit although
I often don’t know enough about the topic to say much. I’ve
brought up some of the non-philosophical topics here before too such
as the relationship of category theory in advanced physics or
mathematics as it relates to Peirce. Not that I know much about
category theory, but a few others made comments I learned from.
So I am actually pretty interesting in the applied semiotics. Indeed
while my interests are primarily philosophical I’ve read a
reasonable amount on applies semiotics in various arenas.
I seem to remember a discussion a few months ago on political
implications of Peirce’s thought. I focused primarily on his more
conservative tendencies in his critical common sensism but also the
focus on inquiry.
Anyway, please comment on the non-philosophical points. Even if I
don’t typically comment I frequently read them.
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
