Edwina, List: The point is that according to Peirce, as demonstrated by those quotations, *only *existential particulars can interact, and *only *with other existential particulars. A general cannot interact with anything *as a general*, so it does not interact with existential particulars; instead, it *governs* them.
CSP: But a law necessarily governs, or "is embodied in" individuals, and prescribes some of their qualities. (CP 2.293, EP 2:274; 1903) CSP: By a proposition, as something which can be repeated over and over again, translated into another language, embodied in a logical graph or algebraical formula, and still be one and the same proposition, we do not mean any existing individual object but a type, a general, which does not exist but governs existents, to which individuals conform. (CP 8.313; 1905) Regards, Jon S. On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:06 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS, list > > I'm not sure of the point of your post. I suggested that we'd simply have > to agree-to-disagree. Providing lists of quotations, all of which I fully > agree with, doesn't change my view [and none contradict my view] - which > I'll repeat below: > > " 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." > > That is - Reality, which functions as a generality, DOES, in my view, > interact with the existential particular. > > Edwina > > On Thu 09/08/18 12:52 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > Any word with "act" as its root implies actuality, which is 2ns. > > CSP: Let us begin with considering actuality, and try to make out just > what it consists in. If I ask you what the actuality of an event consists > in, you will tell me that it consists in its happening then and there. The > specifications then and there involve all its relations to other > existents. The actuality of the event seems to lie in its relations to the > universe of existents ... We have a two-sided consciousness of effort and > resistance, which seems to me to come tolerably near to a pure sense of > actuality. On the whole, I think we have here a mode of being of one thing > which consists in how a second object is. I call that Secondness. (CP 1.24; > 1903) > > > CSP: That conception of Aristotle which is embodied for us in the cognate > origin of the terms actuality and activity is one of the most deeply > illuminating products of Greek thinking. Activity implies a generalization > of effort; and effort is a two-sided idea, effort and resistance being > inseparable, and therefore the idea of Actuality has also a dyadic form. > (CP 4.542; 1906) > > CSP: The second Universe is that of the Brute Actuality of things and > facts. I am confident that their Being consists in reactions against Brute > forces ... (CP 6.455, EP 2:435; 1908) > > CSP: Another Universe is that of, first, Objects whose Being consists in > their Brute reactions, and of, second, the facts (reactions, events, > qualities, etc.) concerning those Objects, all of which facts, in the last > analysis, consist in their reactions. I call the Objects, Things, or more > unambiguously, Existents, and the facts about them I call Facts. (EP > 2:479; 1908) > > > Only Existents (2ns)--including Tokens--act, react, or interact; and they > do so only on/with other Existents. For Peirce, this was literally the > defining > attribute of existence. > > CSP: The modern philosophers ... recognize but one mode of being, the > being of an individual thing or fact, the being which consists in the > object’s crowding out a place for itself in the universe, so to speak, and > reacting by brute force of fact, against all other things. I call that > Existence. (CP 1.21; 1903) > > CSP: The existent is that which reacts against other things. (CP 8.191; > c. 1904) > > > CSP: Whatever exists, ex-sists, that is, really acts upon other > existents, so obtains a self-identity, and is definitely individual. (CP > 5.429, EP 2:342; 1905) > > CSP: ... I myself always use exist in its strict philosophical sense of > "react with the other like things in the environment." (CP 6.495; c. 1906) > > > From such a standpoint, strictly speaking, Possibles (1ns) and > Necessitants (3ns)--including Tones and Types, respectively--do not act, > react, or interact on/with anything. That is why any Dynamic Interpretant > (Experiential Information)--an actual feeling, effort, or further > Sign-Replica--is always the result of a "then-and-there" Instance of the > Sign (Token), while the Final Interpretant (Substantial Information) > pertains to the non-temporal/non-spatial Sign itself (Type), and the Immediate > Interpretant (Essential Information) pertains to the qualities/characters > of its expression within a given system of Signs (Tone). Consequently, I > do not see how anything except Tokens could "interact informationally" or > engage in "informational action." > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 8:26 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> 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, 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 .
