BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I wasn't referring at all to the difference between reality and
existence - and as I said in my post, I was indeed talking about
Thirdness as mediation in a Legisign role. Obviously, then, I agree
that the Representamen in a mode of Thirdness within the triadic
semiosic process does not 'exist but governs existents'....So- I'm
unsure of the reason for your comment.
With reference to your problem with my use of the word
'interaction', which you confine to a mode of Secondness - I guess
we'll just have to each agree to differ in our use of the word. I
don't agree that it implies that the "Type exists apart from its
Tokens'. My view is that both are informationally functional and
interact informationally - and this doesn't imply a separate
individual existence for each. Informational action between
information encoded as a general and information encoded as a
particular is, in my view, quite possible.
Edwina
On Thu 09/08/18 9:11 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Edwina Taborsky 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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
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 .
