Jon,
I don't find your blunt assertion that action is only at the level of 2ns to be responsive to my point. One utters speech in order to perform a speech act in language. Speech is a physical phonetic phenomenon that can be taken to be and is action at the 2ns level, but speech is performed in order to be taken at the symbolic level, that of language, where it performs an event of the symbolic type and the nature of the event that occurs is an act. The act of promising, asserting, ordering, praising, etc. Such a speech act is an element of an inter-action. I don't see how one could begin to make sense of symbolic signs if one excludes act, and action and interaction. Obviously a symbolic act is different from a physical act, but it is still an act, and one for which one might well receive a brute physical reaction. Do you really intend to deny there is such a thing, albeit merely symbolic, as a symbolic act? Charles Pyle > On August 14, 2018 at 6:28 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Charles, List: > > No, the action of uttering a Sign is at the level of 2ns. As an Instance > of the Sign, it is an occurrence in which a Sign- Replica determines some > Quasi-mind to a Dynamic Interpretant--an actual feeling, exertion, or further > Sign-Replica. Any language consists of such Tokens--again, at the level of > 2ns--which is why words uttered in different languages can be Replicas of the > same Sign (Type). Only the latter is at the level of 3ns, being embodied in > particular Existents but never acting on, reacting to, or interacting with > them. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Charles Pyle <charlesp...@comcast.net > mailto:charlesp...@comcast.net > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > When one performs a speech act, in the sense used by Austin, such > > as promising, or asserting, is that not action at the level of thirdness? > > Isn't the essence of the doing of something in language an act? > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
