Bogus is a strong term. I think Edwina is suggesting that we observe the pragmatic maxim. What is the practical effect or substance of a consideration? What is the whole of the matter? What is the end of this particular effort to parse a particular sign? Triadic philosophy asks how what we are considering is tolerant, helpful and democratic. It considers how it relates to freedom. love and justice. The end result is an expression or action that can be noted and described.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 11:07 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Edwina, list, > > You wrote: > > "I think that the various comments and concerns by others on the > list, that attempts to set up an analytic and abstract model of the > semiosic process, with each part defined within an exact and singular term > and providing an exact and singular action - actually deny the real nature > of semiosis." > > > Who here is presenting a model "with each part defined within an exact and > singular term and providing an exact and singular action"? > > Besides the fact that Peirce himself made many "analytic and abstract > model [s] of the semiosic process," noting time and again that *Logic as > Semeiotic* is a *theoretical* science (this is especially evident in its > first two branches, theoretical grammar and critic), many Peirce scholars > and other semioticians have found that analytical and abstract analyses and > models can assist them in understanding certain underlying structures and > processes. And so the pages of many journals--and not just *Transactions*--are > filled with such analyses, models, diagrams, etc. > > And this is the case for science more generally: not only does it occur in > virtually all sciences that I know of, but most scientists--at least those > that I know in person (and I know quite a few) or by reputation--hold that > models and abstract analysis do not necessarily deny reality whatsoever. > Quite the contrary. They are but another *tool* to help understand > reality. > > And your own work, including one of your more recent papers, takes an > "analytical and abstract" approach to semeiotic involving models and > diagrams and the like. See: "The Nature of the Sign as a *WFF* - A > Well-Formed Formula" (in WORD format) > <http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/taborsky/taborsky-sign-wff.doc> > > http://www.cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/taborsky/ > taborsky-sign-wff.doc > > ET: "The morphological form is a well-formed formula (*wff*), a Sign, an > organized process of information. The Sign is formed within a triadic set > of relations, which are encoded spatial and temporal measurements. Using a > Cartesian quadrant, the six possible relational modes are examined to show > how reality is moulded within both symmetrical and asymmetrical functions." > > > *Many approaches* to inquiry are, as I see it, quasi-necessary in the > sense that "getting at" reality requires these varied approaches, including > (but not limited to) more abstract and analytical ones. I do not see why > both more or less abstract inquiries ought not be undertaken. > > And given some of your own inquiry--for example the paper above, not to > mention much that you've done on this list--I consider your critique bogus. > > Best, > > Gary > > > > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 8:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> >> List >> >> I think that the various comments and concerns by others on the >> list, that attempts to set up an analytic and abstract model of the >> semiosic process, with each part defined within an exact and singular term >> and providing an exact and singular action - actually deny the real nature >> of semiosis. >> >> As Peirce noted, his pragmatacism was rooted in reality, a reality that >> is necessarily dynamic - and not in models, not in closed abstractions of >> thought. The fact that his semiosis includes not merely three basic modal >> categories - but- if you include the degenerate modes - there are 6 modal >> categories - as well as two objects and three interpretants suggests a >> complex system. >> >> No complex system operates deductively, but as has been pointed out - it >> operates inductively. And - abductively. An abstract technical model has no >> capacity to show or even allow such actions. >> >> In addition, each semiosic triad is networked with other triads - each >> with their own categorical modes - adding to the complex nature of the >> process. >> >> That is, semiosis is a so-called 'far-from-equilibrium' complex adaptive >> system - and can't be outlined within an abstract analytical deductive >> model. >> >> 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
