BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
1] With regard to" It is that if any signs are connected, no
matter how, the resulting system constitutes one sign; " - my
interpretation is that the Signs - multiple Signs - [the triad of
O-R-I] can be connected within the similarity of their common
mediating Representamen laws or iconically or indexically - as for
example, all individuals are the members of one species; or a
photocopy of a document or a network of vines growing together. And
this results in a SYSTEM of connected individuals which share a key
attribute. But this does not reduce them to ONE individual Sign; it
merely explains their commonality as one semiosic Sign.
2] You state that "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."
I disagree; an Argument is not the term for only the Representamen
but for a full triadic semiosic function; an
'Argument-Symbolic-Legisign. The relation to the Object is Symbolic
and is a part/correlate of the semiosic triad, the full Sign.
3] You wrote: "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?"
The Universe as an Argument contains within it the full semiosic
triad of O-R-I. As such, it is complete in itself, and within itself,
it is 'perfused with sign' - by which I understand that the Universe
is constantly generating signs [understood as 'individualities' in
the format of O-R-I] which interact with other signs [understood as
individualities in the format of O-R-I]. I consider that the habits
of 3ns are self-organizing within these Signs - Peirce has explained
the generation and evolution of habits quite well.
There is nothing in Peirce where he writes about any reality outside
of the Universe, and - with regard to my readings in physics etc, I
can find no evidence of such
Edwina
On Sat 18/05/19 5:11 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
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, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 2:35 PM Edwina Taborsky 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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
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 .
