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 .