Edwina, List: ET: 'Binding time together' is an action ... Mediation - is an action ... What else is 'generalizing' but an action! ... Bringing things into relation with each other IS an action!
According to Peirce in the many passages that I have quoted, *none of these are actions*; they are all examples of 3ns, while actions belong to 2ns. Why insist on calling them "actions" when Peirce clearly would not have? ET: Your reduction of the meaning of words to singular meanings, in my view, doesn't make our ideas clear but instead, obscures the pragmatics of Peircean semiosis ... I disagree that he uses words in such a limited and constrained sense. If he were to do that, he'd end up talking only to and with himself. The problem with this hypothesis is that Peirce quite explicitly said otherwise. CSP: As to the ideal to be aimed at, it is, in the first place, desirable for any branch of science that it should have a vocabulary furnishing a family of cognate words for each *scientific *conception, and that each word should have a single exact meaning, unless its different meanings apply to objects of different categories that can never be mistaken for one another. To be sure, this requisite might be understood in a sense which would make it utterly impossible. For every symbol is a living thing, in a very strict sense that is no mere figure of speech. The body of the symbol changes slowly, but its meaning inevitably grows, incorporates new elements and throws off old ones. But the effort of all should be to keep the essence of every scientific term unchanged and exact; although absolute exactitude is not so much as conceivable. (CP 2.222, EP 2:264; 1903) Should we not give considerable weight to this unambiguous opinion--expressed by the author of "How to Make Our Ideas Clear," the inventor of both pragmatism and semeiotic--when evaluating the desirability of precise terminology for making our ideas clear and engaging in the pragmatics of Peircean semiosis? ET: As others on the list have mentioned - isn't it constructive to see discussions on Peirce AND [economics, biology, society, physics, ]….Can we enable this to take place? Absolutely, and anyone is welcome to start threads for those kinds of discussions. However, this one is supposed to be focused on Peirce's semeiotic, perhaps touching on metaphysics, but not necessarily addressing its applications in the Special Sciences like biosemiotics. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS, list > > I'll continue to disagree with your focus and analysis - as you will > disagree with mine. Therefore - I don't see the positive function of more > posts on this! I said - we should agree-to-disagree, and to allow each > other to examine Peirce in our own way ..and see where it takes us. > > I'll try just this once more: > > 'Binding time together' is an action. > > Mediation - is an action. What else can It be but some process that is > happening' - and that's an action! What else is 'generalizing' but an > action! > > A manifestation is an 'event, action or object that embodies or shows > something'. It's an ACTION! And so on. Bringing things into relation with > each other IS an action! > > Your reduction of the meaning of words to singular meanings, in my view, > doesn't make our ideas clear but instead, obscures the pragmatics of > Peircean semiosis - which is actually a logical, rational and clear and > powerful perspective and analytic framework. I disagree that he uses words > in such a limited and constrained sense. If he were to do that, he'd end up > talking only to and with himself. > > And I note - that I don't see any movement from all this terminology of > the seminar room into the real actual word. As I said - I want to see how > semiosis actually functions in the real world. I'm not focused on the > intellectual discussions of the seminar room. I know they appeal to some > and of course, each to his own choice. My focus is what's going on, > semiosically, in the real world. You, on the other hand, enjoy these > terminological outlines - so continue to do so. BUT - please don't insist > that I must abide by its constraints. > > As others on the list have mentioned - isn't it constructive to see > discussions on Peirce AND [economics, biology, society, physics, ]….Can we > enable this to take place? Or will we always be interrupting the > discussion with 'No, you can't use the term 'action' there. No, you can't > refer to an interaction there'. > > I gave some biological examples of 3ns as a dynamic learning process - > functioning to develop and adapt habits. How about the social realm? I > posit that it can take 3 generations for a society to change its normative > habits of belief and behaviour - i.e., to change its 3ns. Why can't we have > discussions on analyzing the semiosic development, maturation and change - > of 1ns, 2ns and 3ns among societies? If we use the 'wrong term' - will it > destroy the analysis? > > 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 .
