wrote:
CSP: Every sign that is sufficiently complete refers to sundry real objects. All these objects, even if we are talking of Hamlet's madness, are parts of one and the same Universe of being, the "Truth." But so far as the "Truth" is merely the object of a sign, it is merely the Aristotelian Matter of it that is so. In addition however to denoting objects, every sign sufficiently complete signifies characters, or qualities ... All these characters are elements of the "Truth." Every sign signifies the "Truth." But it is only the Aristotelian Form of the universe that it signifies ... The purpose of every sign is to express "fact," and by being joined with other signs, to approach as nearly as possible to determining an interpretant which would be the perfect Truth, the absolute Truth, and as such (at least, we may use this language) would be the very Universe. Aristotle gropes for a conception of perfection, or entelechy, which he never succeeds in making clear. We may adopt the word to mean the very fact, that is, the ideal sign which should be quite perfect, and so identical,--in such identity as a sign may have,--with the very matter denoted united with the very form signified by it.
Gary R, list
Again - we'll just have to disagree.
1] In my view, something that is occurring with the actions of 'chance, spontaneity and freedom' is not amenable to measurement. As such, the experience of them is subjective, i.e., emerging within the organism rather than from an external agent. I consider 'quality' to be the same value - As noted - 'it has no individuality' and as such - cannot be measured.
Just because chance/spontaneity etc are vital for actions of adaptation and evolution does not mean that they are not subjective! I think that you and I are using the term 'subjective' in different ways. I do not mean within the human mind, conscious or unconscious. I mean within the organism and not caused by an external agent. I don't consider 'quality' to be amenable to external measurement. It is 'what it is', in itself, i.e., 1ns, and not measurable.
2] I don't consider the nature and function of scientific measurement to be an 'obsession' but a rational and objective action. I certainly don't want to ride a plane or train that has not been built according to measurements. All I have done is to point out that some actions within our complex infrastructure are not amenable to such external objective measurements.
3] I disagree with both your and Jon's outline of the terms of Form, Matter and Entelechy, which you both put into an ordinal outline. To say that Form is 1ns, suggests that its identity is pre-established as a potentiality, whereas, I believe that the Form that matter/mass takes only appears within the Interpretant phase, after having been 'moulded' so to speak, by the rules of the Representamen. These rules can alter the nature of the incoming matter/mass...
4] The reference Jon gave to NP 2.303-4 is an outline of the semiosic process -
"Of the two great tasks of humanity, Theory and Practice, the former sets out from a sign of a real object with which it is acquainted, passing from this as its matter, to successive interpretants embodying more and more fully its form, wishing ultimately to reach a direct perception of the entelechy;"
NOTE: in the above outline, which refers to the actions of a Sign, I read this to mean that the action proceeds from being in actual touch with the matter of an external Object..The semiosic process then comes up with multiple interpretants which describe more fully the actual form of this object...to an understanding of the entelechy' -true identity of the Object.
5] The section continues..
"while the latter, setting out from a sign signifying a character of which it has an idea, passes from this as its form, to successive interpretants realizing more and more precisely its matter, hoping ultimately to be able to make a direct effort, producing the entelechy".
NOTE: In the above outline, I read this semiosic process to mean that the action moves only from an 'idea' of an external object, which is understood as a form...and then, you interpret this form to figure out the matter of that object, and then, hope to figure out the true identity.
I don't think that the above outline sets out Form as 1ns, Matter as 2ns, and Entelechy as 3ns. It describes two types of semiosis.
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 .
