Edwina, List: I appreciate the distinction that you make between our different projects, but I think that you are overestimating the ambition of mine. I am well aware of the difference between complicated and complex, as well as the difference between complex and complex-adaptive. I fully recognize the complex-adaptive nature of concrete semiosis and have no desire to overlook or minimize it.
The goal of my current inquiry--which is still very much a work in progress--is simply to gain a better understanding of what you call "the basic model"; i.e., what the six Correlates *are*, and how they relate to one another in a *single instance* of semiosis. I can no more hope to capture the *entire *process with this admittedly "analytic and abstract" approach than that my mathematical models of actual buildings will reflect their *precise *structural behavior. In both cases, I have no expectation of achieving *complete *knowledge; but I will likely know *more *than I did before, which is *always *the objective of *any *kind of reasoning (cf. CP 5.365; 1877). On my reading of Peirce, the six Correlates are not "nodal sites," they are logical Subjects. In addition, there are three dyadic Relations between Correlates (Od-S, S-Id, S-If), as well as the governing triadic Relation (Od-S-If). Each of these Correlates and Relations is divided into three Universes--Possible, Existent, Necessitant--not six "Categorical Modes." These are the ten trichotomies (CP 8.344-374, EP 2:482-490; 1908) that serve as the basis for identifying 66 classes of Signs, once they are arranged into the proper "order of determination" (EP 2:481; 1908)--a task that Peirce himself never completed, which is probably why I find it so fascinating to explore. What are the practical implications of all this? I have no idea; and since, as Gary R. noted, this is (so far) a strictly *theoretical *inquiry, it really does not matter. I may come up with some along the way, or I may end up just leaving that question as something for others to answer. I am genuinely eager for *constructive *feedback from anyone who cares to offer it, but merely asserting that I am wasting my time is not going to deter me from pressing forward. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Stephen, Gary R, list > > Stephen, thanks for your post. Yes, bogus is a strong term but Gary R has > a point - so, I'll try to explain. > > 1]My analysis of the Sign as a WFF [well-formed formula] is not a model of > the semiosic process, the triad, but an analytic model of the Six > Categorical Modes; 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, 2-1, 3-1, 3-2. It uses a Cartesian > quadrant to show their spatial and temporal identities; I.e., local or > non-local space and three modes of time. > > The only image of the semiosic process is the Y shape. > > I think that putting the Six Relations into an analytic format - which is > NOT a model of them in operation - helps the reader to understand their > different spatial and temporal identities. > > 2] However - what Jon [JAS] is attempting to do seems to me to be an > attempt to model the semiosic process. That's different. > > The semiosic process at its most basic consists of potentially, six > different nodal sites: the DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI. The Relations between these > 'nodal sites'; e.g.., between the DO and IO; between the IO and R...can > each be in a different categorical mode; i.e., genuine Thirdness, > degenerate Thirdness. [Those 6 Relations that I was referring to in my > paper]. And we must remember that the Six Relations bring with them > different spatial and temporal identities- which means that the process is > not a simple linear path. > > This, to me, means that the Semiosic Process is a Complex Adaptive System. > A CAS is not simply a 'complicated' system; that is, 'complex' does not > mean 'complicated'. A CAS means that the whole cannot be broken down > into its parts. The CAS doesn't function as a 'collection of parts'. > > I don't think that the issue is that 'we just have to get a better model'. > I think that the Peircean semiosis is a CAS- that's what gives it its > dynamic explanatory capacity among not merely human cognition - but within > the biological and physical realms. Saussurian semiology, the works of > Morris etc - these are all mechanical systems; they can be explained using > their 'bits and parts'. But they have little to do with real life! You > can't reduce a CAS to a collection of parts. > > 3] The attempt by JAS to do just this; break the semiosic process down > into a collection of parts, with each part specifically having a single > meaning or action - seems to me, to be doomed to failure. I hesitate to > critique his model because he gets quite defensive about it - but - I will > claim, again, that a reductionist modeling of a complex adaptive system > simply can't be done. > > All you can do when trying to explain a CAS, I think, is to analyze its > components and some of their relations - which may even be too numerous to > do. After all, that one cellular organism is interacting, not just with one > other cell - but with multiple other informational nodes from numerous > nodes. So, information is coming from numerous sites - which can be at the > same time, operating as a DO, a DI, a R...and so on. > > I think that Peirce's basic 'set' - the Six Nodes [so to speak] and the > Six Categorical Relations - is the basic model. I don't know that we can > constructively outline the paths of interaction any more than that. I think > we end up being unable to explain the adaptive and constructive capacities > of Peircean semiosis. > > Edwina > > On Sat 24/03/18 6:14 AM , "Stephen C. Rose" stever...@gmail.com sent: > > 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/tabor >> sky-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 .
