Edwina, List: I suppose we can say that a Type depends on its Tokens for its *existence*, but certainly not for its *Reality*, because the mode of Being of a Type is not reaction (2ns) but mediation (3ns). Consequently, I still think we should avoid saying that a Type "interacts" with its Tokens, because this implies that the Type exists *apart from* its Tokens, such that it can *react with* them. As the quote below from Peirce states, a Type "does not exist but *governs* existents" (CP 8.313; 1905, emphasis added); the Sign's unchanging *ideal* Final Interpretant logically/semiotically determines (constrains) its various *actual* Dynamic Interpretants, not the other way around.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Gary R, JAS, list > > 1] I question the claim that "The Type is not dependent on its > Tokens--past, present, or future--any more than the hardness of a diamond > is dependent on its ever actually being scratched. Such is the nature of > a Real "would-be." > > My view is that the Type - which I understand as a general, as laws, is > most certainly dependent on being articulated as a Token, for generals do > not exist except as articulated within/as the particular. And it is the > experiences of the particular instantiation that can affect the Types and > enable adaptation and evolution of the general/laws.since, as we know, > growth and increasing complexity is 'the rule' [can't remember section..] > > "I do not mean any existing individual object, but a type, a general, > which does not exist but governs existents, to which individuals conform" > 8.313. > > That is - I think the relation between the law/general and the > instantiation is intimate and interactive [there's that terrible word > again!]. > > 2] Symbols grow' - which to me, means that they become more complex in > their laws and their networked connections with other Signs. But I will > also suggest that symbols must have the capacity to implode as well! > > 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 .
