Edwina, List: ET: Again, I think one can get entrapped in the differentiation between a Representamen, understood as the mediating node of the triad of O-R-I and the Sign, understood as the full triad - AND - the use of the term 'sign' to refer only to the mediating Representamen.
Again, I disagree with this particular use of terminology and the associated model of semeiosis, but I see no need to revisit that well-worn path. In Peirce's usage, either a Sign is a Representamen with a mental Interpretant (CP 2.274, EP 2:273 and CP 2.242, EP 2:291; both 1903) or the two terms are synonymous (SS 193; 1905). ET: Therefore, the Universe is self-organizing; it has no boundaries or horizons and there is nothing 'outside of it'. The word "therefore" implies that this is the conclusion of an argumentation. What are the premisses from which it *necessarily follows *that the Universe is self-organizing, and that there is nothing outside of it? ET: Furthermore, I question the idea that, so to speak, 'if there is a Sign connected to another Sign, then all Signs are 'as one'. [Please provide a reference]. I must admit some mild frustration at this request, because I have given the citation many times before, and only omitted it in this case because I assumed that it was unnecessary by now. Nevertheless, here is a longer excerpt to provide both the context and Peirce's own explication of the key statement. CSP: The process [of semeiosis] rather reminds one of the reproduction of a population,--sufficiently so, indeed, to furnish a convenient store of metaphors requisite for the expression of its relations. Naturally, such metaphors, greatly serviceable though they are, are like edge-tools, not to be entrusted to babies or to fools or to the immature. There is a science of semeiotics whose results no more afford room for differences of opinion than do those of mathematics, and one of its theorems increases the aptness of that simile. It is that *if any signs are connected, no matter how, the resulting system constitutes one sign*; so that, most connections resulting from successive pairings, a sign frequently interprets a second in so far as this is "married" to a third. Thus, the conclusion of a syllogism is the interpretation of either premiss as married to the other; and of this sort are all the principal translation-processes of thought. In the light of the above theorem, we see that the entire thought-life of any one person is a sign; and a considerable part of its interpretation will result from marriages with the thoughts of other persons. So the thought-life of a social group is a sign; and the entire body of all thought is a sign, supposing all thought to be more or less connected. (R 1476:36[5-1/2]; c. 1904, bold added) The illustrative example that Peirce provided is an Argument--specifically, a syllogism--and he went on to state explicitly that "the entire body of all thought is a sign" (singular). Since we seem to agree that every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself, what could be the Object of "the entire body of all thought"? ET: I question the ability of the Universe to actually reduce its complexity to ONE Sign - given that the Universe operates within not one categorial mode/universe [ie of Thirdness] but within THREE modes: Firstness, Secondness AND Thirdness. Treating the Universe--or for that matter, "the entire body of all thought"--as *one *Sign does not at all "reduce its complexity." Consider what Peirce went on to say about the Universe immediately after calling it "a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities." CSP: Now every symbol must have, organically attached to it, its Indices of Reactions and its Icons of Qualities; and such part as these reactions and these qualities play in an argument, that they of course play in the Universe, that Universe being precisely an argument. (CP 5.119, EP 2:193-194; 1903) 3ns always *involves *2ns and 1ns. Every Symbol *involves *Indices and Icons. Every Argument *involves *Propositions and Semes. Calling the Universe a Symbol and an Argument (both singular) does not in any way *reduce *its complexity, but rather *recognizes *its complexity--an Argument is the *most complex* kind of Sign that there is! Nevertheless, like any other Sign, it must be determined by an Object other than itself. 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 2:35 PM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > List > > Again, I think one can get entrapped in the differentiation between a > Representamen, understood as the mediating node of the triad of O-R-I and > the Sign, understood as the full triad - AND - the use of the term 'sign' > to refer only to the mediating Representamen. > > Peirce's comment is that 'the universe is a vast representamen, a great > symbol of God's purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities" > 5.119....and goes on to further define the Universe as 'an argument' > [5.119] and "The Universe as an argument is necessarily a great work of > art, a great poem" 5.119 > > My reading of the above is that the Universe is most certainly not 'just' > the mediative node of the Representamen in the triad of O-R-I, for as I've > said, the Representamen has no existentiality of its own but operates > within a triad - but the Universe is - as he states, as a whole - an > Argument, composed of all three nodes of the > Object-Representamen-Interpretant within a mode of Thirdness, i.e., a > rational process of Mind interacting with Objects [which are > also functioning in their own semiosic triads] and producing > Interpretants...which become Objects and so on. Within this vast Argument, > all the other classes of semiosis are operating. > > Therefore, the Universe is self-organizing; it has no boundaries or > horizons and there is nothing 'outside of it'. Therefore, I don't agree > with the view of JAS that the Universe has boundaries and that God is a > reality outside of it. > > Furthermore, I question the idea that, so to speak, 'if there is a Sign > connected to another Sign, then all Signs are 'as one'. [Please provide a > reference]. > > Most certainly, the reality of the process of semiosis is 'the tendency > to take habits' i.e., to generalize, which leads to the result that all > instances of this generalized law are somewhat similar Signs [triads]. So, > all members of one species are 'somewhat similar'. BUT, at the same time, > the facts of Nature are that another reality of the process of semiosis is > the action of instantiation where the individual 'token' of the 'type' > emerges in its haecceity of 'here and now'. AND another reality of the > process of semiosis is the function of Firstness with its deviation from > the law. > > That is - I question the ability of the Universe to actually reduce its > complexity to ONE Sign - given that the Universe operates within not one > categorial mode/universe [ie of Thirdness] but within THREE modes: > Firstness, Secondness AND Thirdness. Therefore - I don't see how the > Universe, which is a constant process of generating triadic Signs [O-R-I] > can reduce this process to either the Representamen [ as JAS seems to > suggest with its need for the external Object] or even, to one triadic > Sign. > > 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 .
