BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - I have no problem with you and I having conceptual
differences. There is absolutely nothing wrong with conceptual
differences!!
And I note that you were courteous and did NOT tell me that my views
are 'unPeircean'. Just as I would never tell anyone with whom I
disagreed about a Peircean issue - that their views were
'unPeircean'. Neither of us can set ourselves up as Gatekeepers - we
are equal researchers in the field. And we have the right to disagree
with each other about our conclusions.
With regard to Gary F's public disparagement of a peer-reviewed
article to which I referred in a different thread - which I doubt he
has read beyond the abstract - as 'uninformative, uninteresting,
non-empirical and esoteric' - I've posted the names and addresses of
the scholars who wrote this peer-reviewed article. Perhaps he would
like to write them and given them his views of their work. I note
that this was the lead article in the issue - and I note that their
credentials suggest that their work would be 'empirically grounded
and most certainly not 'esoterica'. As for being uninteresting and
uninformative - that would depend on the reader of the article.
Thermodynamics of Majority-Logic Decoding in Information Erasure
Shiqi Sheng [1] 1, Tim Herpich [2] 2, Giovanni Diana [3] 3 and
Massimiliano Esposito [4] 2,* [5] 1Division of Interfacial Water and
Key Laboratory of Interfacial Physics and Technology, Shanghai
Institute of Applied Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai
201800, China2Complex Systems and Statistical Mechanics, University
of Luxembourg, L-1511 Luxembourg, Luxembourg3Center for Developmental
Neurobiology & MRC Center for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, King’s
College London, Guy’s Hospital Campus, London SE1 1UL, UK*Author to
whom correspondence should be addressed. Received: 10 January 2019 /
Revised: 25 February 2019 / Accepted: 11 March 2019 / Published: 15
March 2019 (This article belongs to the Special Issue Thermodynamics
of Information Processing [6])
On Sat 30/03/19 11:17 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, Jon, List,
I had written in the post to which Edwina responded:
GR: I must admit that since you and I have taken this up in the past
and could come to no agreement on the matter, I've very little hope
that we will this go round.
Jon quoted Edwina, then wrote:
ET: Gary R - thanks for your reply - but- we are talking about
different things.
JAS: . . . this is not merely a terminological difference, it is a
conceptual difference.
Edwina, I am somewhat saddened to have to say that I have come to
the conclusion that the conceptual difference between our
understandings of semeiotic is just too great a chasm to bridge. I
responded to your question as best I could and have nothing further
to add. Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication Studies LaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 9:25 PM Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
Edwina, List:
ET: Gary R - thanks for your reply - but- we are talking about
different things.
I agree--Gary R. is talking about Peirce's Semeiotic, and you are
talking about something else. As I said before, this is not merely a
terminological difference, it is a conceptual difference.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [8] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [9]
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 4:42 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R - thanks for your reply - but- we are talking about different
things.
When I refer to the triadic Sign, I am referring not to the
mediative Representamen [which can also be referred to as the 'sign]]
but to the full triad of O-R-I. The triad is irreducible.
I quite understand how unpacking this triad puts the
Representamen/sign as the first correlate, i.e., which means it
provides the basis of the semiosic process - and how the input from
the O is the second correlate....and finally..the result is the third
correlate which is the Interpretant. I agree with Peirce's outline of
'First, Second, Third'.
But this doesn't inform us of the nature of the process of
interaction between these three nodes of the triad. By the 'nature of
the process of interaction' - I mean what is the modal category of
this interaction?
You referenced, in your original post [and I can't access it now
with this computer or I'll lose this post!] - but you referenced the
modal categories of 1ns, 2ns, 3ns - which are NOT the same as the
three correlates whose numbers are ORDINAL and do not refer to the
Categories. The categories describe the nature of the interaction
between nodal sites [O-R-I] - which interactions I term 'Relations'.
This term is not confined to me.
Peirce himself used the term 'relation' eg. "In respect to their
relations to their dynamic objects, I divide signs into Icons,
Indices and Symbols" 8.335..and 8.337 where he refers to the
relations with the Interpretant. And he discusses relations
extensively in the Logic of Relatives ,,and focuses on 'the modes of
connexion' 3.364 and the triad as in "A gives B to C' which is a
basic triad of three correlates. [MS/R 418:354. The point about a
relation is 'A relation is a fact about a number of things' 3.416. -
Peirce used the term to refer to the interaction between the
sign/Representamen and the DO..and the Interpretant. The FACTS refer
to the modal categories. To simply use the term 'correlate' to refer
to the three 'spokes' of the triad says nothing about the NATURE of
their interactions.
You wrote: "So for every class there is a Sign taken in itself
(1ns), and Sign in relation to its Object (2ns), and a Sign in
relation to its Interpretant (3ns). And in my analysis, Peirce gives
the names of each sign class in involutional order: the Interpretant
(3ns) involves the Object (2ns) which involves the Sign in itself
(1ns) such that in my analysis it matters not which type of the 3
kinds of, say, relations a given sign is in itself (qualisign,
sinsign, or legisign), it remains, qua sign, a 1ns, and in the
diagram on the right, it will in each trikon of the 10 appear on the
upper left of that trikon. "
Now - with the above - you inserted the modal categories in place of
First, Second, Third ...but I don't see this. I acknowledge the three
correlates of First, Second, Third - but these are not the same as
the three modal categories of 1ns, 2nd, 3ns.
In other words - I think we have to be very careful to differentiate
the Order-of-Interaction from the Three Modal Categories. Just as I
think we have to be careful to differentiate between the
sign/Representamen and the triadic Sign of O-R-I.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1] https://www.mdpi.com/search?authors=Shiqi%20Sheng&orcid=
[2] https://www.mdpi.com/search?authors=Tim%20Herpich&orcid=
[3] https://www.mdpi.com/search?authors=Giovanni%20Diana&orcid=
[4]
https://www.mdpi.com/search?authors=Massimiliano%20Esposito&orcid=0000-0002-2249-4035
[5] https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2249-4035
[6]
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/entropy/special_issues/thermodynamics_information_processing
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[8] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[9] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[10]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
