Jon, Edwina, List, Jon wrote:
JAS: Again, besides stating plainly that "the Universe is a vast representamen" . . . Peirce affirmed that "if any signs are connected, no matter how, the resulting *system* constitutes one sign" . . . calling this a *theorem *of the science of semeiotics. Any Argument is a Sign, and it is also a continuous *process *of semeiosis; the two labels are not mutually exclusive. Let's also recall that Peirce would refer to such things as a complete play (say, *Hamlet*) or a novel (say, *War and Peace*) as a Symbol. I have little doubt that he would see even the 11 volumes of Will and Ariel Durant's *Story of Civilization* *taken together* as a single Symbol and it many translations into languages other than English as replicas of that Symbol. Indeed, Peirce would write that even *an entire language*, including its modifications and evolution over centuries is a Symbol. The Universe as Symbol is for Peirce but, shall we say, the ultimate Symbol, *and* the ultimate "continuous process of semeiosis" (JAS). Best, Gary R *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 1:04 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Edwina, List: > > ET: I deny that the Universe is a Sign. My view is that Peirce did not > say that the "Universe is a Sign'. > > > I sincerely appreciate this straightforward acknowledgement, and I > understand your position while continuing to disagree with it. > > Again, besides stating plainly that "the Universe is a vast representamen" > (which you interpret as metaphorical), Peirce affirmed that "if any signs > are connected, no matter how, the resulting *system* constitutes one > sign" (emphasis mine), calling this a *theorem *of the science of > semeiotics. Any Argument is a Sign, and it is also a continuous *process > *of semeiosis; the two labels are not mutually exclusive. Moreover, > calling the Universe a Sign is in no way treating it as a "thing," since > after all, "a sign is not a real thing" (EP 2:303; 1904). Our further > disagreements about the nature of semeiosis, the definition of > "Representamen," and whether "Sign" designates a triad or a correlate are > well-documented; so we need not rehash them. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 11:23 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> I am going to only focus on the meaning of 'sign' and 'semiosis. That is, >> I will refer only to one of JAS's comment below: >> >> " Do you therefore deny that the Universe is a Sign? Or do you view >> something other than God as its Object? Or do you simply think that Peirce >> was wrong about every Sign being strictly passive in relation to its >> Object? Rejecting the impassibility of God leaves only those three >> options, as far as I can tell." >> >> ET: I deny that the Universe is a Sign. My view is that Peirce did not >> say that the "Universe is a Sign' . He wrote: "the entire universe - not >> merely the universe of existents, but all that wider universe, embracing >> the universe of existents as a part, the universe which we are all >> accustomed to refer to as 'the truth' - that all this universe is perfused >> with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs" 5.449f. >> >> I read the above phrase of 'perfused with signs' to refer to the dynamic >> irreducible semiosic process of transforming data from objects, via the >> representamen, into interpretants. This constant plethora of triadic >> processes, IS the universe. >> >> I don't reduce this action of semiosis to a 'thing'; i.e., I don't reduce >> this triadic semiosis process to ONE Sign. And I think we also have to be >> careful of what is meant by the term of 'sign'. Do we mean the full triad >> of O-R-I? Or, the mediative process of the Representamen? So- if we are, by >> the term of 'Sign' meaning the full triad, then, I don't reduce the >> plethora of signs to ONE triad. And if we mean the Representamen, then, >> again, I don't reduce the mediative action to ONE action. I agree that the >> Representamen is passive to the Object, but it transforms this input data >> into an Interpretant information - which triad is a Sign. >> >> The step that JAS takes, - which is, I consider, regressive and >> reductionist, does reduce the whole 'perfusion of signs' - to not merely >> one sign, but to a conclusion that the Universe IS a Sign [full triad or >> representamen? - I'm guessing - Representamen]. >> >> Can one really conclude that the Universe is not a full triadic process >> but is instead, only the mediative process - which requires an external >> Object to even exist as such? After all, the Representamen, that mediative >> process, does not exist per se, it functions only within the triadic >> semiosic process. Is the Universe only the mediative process? That seems >> illogical. Even if, in its generalizing nature, the sign/representamen >> generalizes among many other signs/representamens to coalesce into a >> commonality - this still doesn't mean that it 'exists on its own'. >> >> The way I read Peirce's statement is that the entire Universe is NOT a >> SIGN; it is a semiosic process generating a plethora of triadic signs- and >> even, different representamens/laws. Therefore, there is no external realm >> to the Universe; it is self-sufficient and self-generating. >> >> Edwina >> > <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free. www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
----------------------------- 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 .
