Mike, list, Mike wrote: I thank Gary R. for starting this thread.
In point of fact, Jon Alan Schmidt started the thread. However, I hope my messages--some rather long, I'm afraid--helped contribute to a better understanding of existence/reality and the categories or at least some of the challenged surrounding those topics. I myself have a lot to think about as the result of the posts of a number of contributors to the discussion including you. The snippet Gary F offered today on the need for patience in studying the categories ought be, I think, applied to many if not all of the discussions here. In a section on the need for Patience, Tolerance, and Optimism on the peirce-l page at Arisbe Joe Ransdell quoted the Bhagavad Gita: "Do not work for the fruits of your action." Here's the entire section: http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/PEIRCE-L/PEIRCE-L.HTM NEED FOR PATIENCE, TOLERANCE, OPTIMISM ------------------------------ If you are already acquainted with list-based communication of this sort then you are aware that it is in some ways importantly unlike face-to-face group discussion, and the effective use of this medium requires the cultivation of attitudes appropriate to much looser patterns of communicational responsiveness and of a kind of patience and tolerance that may at first seem unnatural (especially on those occasions when you post something and no one seems interested in responding at all!). But is it unnatural? It is the custom of the Huicholes in Mexico, when they wish to visit someone, to sit down some 50 feet or so from the friend's house, in full view of it but not facing the house directly, as if their interest just happens to be in something located nearby. The people in the house may come and go for many hours, indeed all day, without showing the slightest indication that they perceive the would-be visitor, and the latter may or may not stay waiting long enough to be overtly noticed, with no one ever saying anything later to indicate that any visiting activity like this has occurred. Communication in forums of this type is often like that—though it can sometimes be very like rapid-pace face-to-face discussion, too—and there are other unusual features of it as well which we may also want to discuss on the list itself. If nobody responds to your posts you should NOT assume that it is because of lack of interest, or that your post is perceived as something negligible. You really have no basis for doing that, given the understandings and practices of lists like this. Frequently, the interested people just don't have time to respond, and few of us have time to respond to more than a small percentage of the things that interest us, in any case. Since you usually have no way of knowing why you didn't get the response you hoped for, it is best to be Stoic about it—or as it says in the Bhagavad Gita: "Do not work for the fruits of your action." Pose your questions and comments well by your own standards and remind yourself that even if there is no overt response, what you have said or asked will be read by hundreds of people in any case, and with what results or "fruits" you cannot know. If overt response is also important to you, then wait a month or so and try it again. I continue to learn from our discussions here including this one. But this will, I think, be my last post in this thread, at least for now, as we turn to Lowell 2. Best, Gary [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *718 482-5690* On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote: > Hi Edwina, List, > > You answered just as I thought you might: > > On 10/20/2017 4:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > I'd say that Peirce's semiosis is more basic than and necessarily includes > the three categories. The three categories are, in themselves, purely > intellectual constructs. But Peirce, as a pragmatist, doesn't live in the > world of 'pure intellect' but is concerned with and is exploring the nature > of the cognitive world, which is to say, the operation of Mind and how Mind > operates within/as Matter - which includes all matter [Matter is effete > Mind] - both physical and biological...as well as the operation of the > human mind. > > > So, let me ask a couple of more questions. > > > 1. Where may the ideas of spontaneous chance or of the "surprising > fact" be explained by/captured by/explicated by semiosis? > 2. How may semiosis provide an explanatory framework for the Big Bang? > 3. Where/how is the sense of continuity captured by Peircean semiosis? > 4. How does one explain abductive reasoning given the terminology of > semiosis? > 5. How does one distinguish between perceptions (perceived external > actions) and our own actions (our pushing against the door) using Peircean > semiosis? > > > My suspicion is that, with much legerdemain, one might be able to > formulate responses to these questions in the terminology of semiosis, But, > even so, I further suspect these would be derivatives of terminology > (concepts) already found in the universal categories. For example, to me, > the ground of Firstness is spontaneous chance. I'm not quite sure how to > treat that in the context of semiosis and sign terminology. I think I do > know how to address these questions using the universal categories. > > I personally see semiosis as more akin to information theory, Spontaneous > chance leads to new information structures, with evolution favoring those > representamen that provide the fastest free energy consumption (which is > equivalent to the greatest energy dissipation or maximum entropy > production), all of which occurs in those localized cosmic conditions where > there are very high free energy spikes (topologically the spines of a > porcupinefish); namely, Earth for one. Approaching the limits to "truth" is > the evolutionary favoring of dissipative structures (representamen) that > maximize this entropy production in the fastest increment of time. DNA and > social networks are two approximate examples. > > Signs, to me, are for sure the mediating construct for this process. If > you recall, Peirce first embedded his triadic logic between the bookends of > Being and Substance. I have come to feel, however, that Peircean scholars > who focus on semiosis, which I know includes yourself, are resorting to > Maslow's hammer. I prefer the richer toolbox of the universal categories. > > I'm not quite sure one can be pragmatic without being intelligent. > Pragmatists should adopt the best logic, concepts, terminology and methods > available in order to address their inquiries of need in the quickest and > most effective manner. It's too bad we can't ask these questions directly > to Peirce. > > Since my questions, in terms of our differing perspectives, are likely > more rhetorical than anything else, I look forward to your responses, if > any, but will likely cease commenting on this thread. Thanks for your > input. I thank Gary R. for starting this thread. > > Best, Mike > > > > Edwina > > > > > > > > On Fri 20/10/17 4:36 PM , Michael Bergman m...@mkbergman.com sent: > > Hi Edwina, > > On 10/20/2017 2:45 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Mike - here, I strongly disagree with you, when you wrote: > > > > > > Your comment ' we need to talk about signs when our discourse is > > representation'...is something that is very common in the semiological > > world, but is, I suggest, invalid in the Peircean world. > > Please. Forget the labels and the easy dismissal that I have engaged in > some Saussurean fallacies here. > > All I am suggesting is to focus on the "nature of the object," which I > don't think I or Peirce would say is the same as the "nature of the sign". > > What I have tried to suggest is that the more fundamental "Peircean" > interpretation comes from the lens of the universal categories, which, > by the nature of usage and wealth of terminology, subsumes the notion of > semeiosis. 1ns, 2ns and 3ns provide a richer pool of concepts for > investigating metaphysical questions than does the terminology of > representation (signs). Otherwise, why does Peirce ever use them? > > None of this is to say the I like the child better than the parent or > vice versa, just that the universal categories are best suited to > questions of metaphysics, semiosis to sign representations. > > As an exercise, please just answer this three-choice question: > > A. Peirce's semiosis subsumes the idea of his universal categories > > B. Peirce's universal categories subsume the idea of his semiosis > > C. Peirce's semiosis is synonomous with/equivalent to the universal > categories. > > I don't believe that picking B requires me to burn at the stake. ;) > > Mike > > > > > Semiosis and signs are NOT about 'representation' but about the > > true nature of reality and actuality - both of which function only > > within semiosis, which is to say, within the triadic Sign. Therefore - > > metaphysics and the 'true nature of Objects' is the real topic of > > discourse within any examination of Signs. > > > > That blueprint, as a rhematic iconic sinsign - is its semiosic > > definition as AN OBJECT. Nothing to do with 'representation' of the > > blueprint, but everything to do with defining its nature as an object. > > With defining how it exists and how we interact with it. > > > > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
