Charles, List: I apologize for being blunt, but we had a rather lengthy and somewhat contentious List discussion of this topic just last week, so I was hoping that a brief summary would suffice. Here are links to a few of the key exchanges for anyone interested in reviewing the details.
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-08/msg00130.html https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-08/msg00136.html https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-08/msg00147.html https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-08/msg00170.html The bottom line is that in Peirce's philosophical system, 1ns/2ns/3ns correspond to quality/reaction/mediation in phaneroscopy, feeling/action/thought in Normative Science, and possibility/actuality/regularity in metaphysics. The consistent alignment of re*act*ion, *act*ion, and *act*uality with 2ns is neither accidental nor trivial (cf. CP 4.542; 1906). I do not deny that there are "symbolic acts" or "triadic action"; I simply advocate properly associating the *act*ive/ *act*ual aspects of these with 2ns, rather than 3ns. Symbols *as general Signs* do not inter*act* with anything; only their *individual Replicas* do. Regards, Jon S. On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 8:51 PM, Charles Pyle <charlesp...@comcast.net> wrote: > 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 - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 4:02 PM, Charles Pyle <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 .
