Edwina, List: 1. Please reread what you quoted from CP 5.484 very carefully. It states that *semeiosis *is "an action or influence" that involves *three *subjects, one of which is a *Sign*. Hence the word "Sign" does not denote the *action*, but one of the three *subjects *involved in that action; i.e., it does not denote the *triad *or *triadic relation*, but one of its three *correlates*, as I have been saying all along.
2. Please stop calling my view "reductionism" and pretending that I invented it myself. I am *directly quoting *Peirce when I say that "if any signs are connected, no matter how, the resulting system constitutes one sign" (R 1476:36[5-1/2]; c. 1904). Denying what Peirce explicitly called a "theorem" of the "science of semeiotics" is straightforwardly *disagreeing with him*, and he also went on to state *explicitly *the implication that "the body of all thought is a sign" (singular). ET: Therefore although each of your premises might be in itself valid in its own domain, I consider that putting them together leads to a false conclusion ... If each of my premisses is *true*, and the form of my argumentation is *valid*--which it unquestionably is, as demonstrated below--then the conclusion *must *also be true; i.e., my argumentation is *sound*. Regards, Jon S. On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:32 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > JAS, list > > 1] I disagree with your assertion that Peirce never said that the triad is > a sign. See.. "by 'semiosis' I mean, on the contrary, an action or > influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three subjects, such as > a sign, its object, and its interpretant, this tri-relative influence not > being in any way resolvable into actions between pairs...'semeiosis' in > Greek of the Roman period, as early as Cicero's time, if I remember > rightly, meant the action of any kind of sign; and my definition on > anything that so acts the title of a 'sign' 5.484. I read that to mean > that the title of 'sign' refers to the semiosic tri-relative action'. My > emphasis on the words of 'action' and 'act'. Therefore - I continue to use > the term of Sign to refer to this tri-relative action. > > 2] My reading of 'the entire universe is perfused with signs, if it is not > composed exclusively of signs' is that the universe is a continuous > semiosic process - of that triad. You, on the other hand, seem to > understand this to mean a reductionism which declares that All signs are > connected and therefore, are ONE sign' - whereas I understand Peircean > semiosis to be a continuous process but not a material reductionism of its > material results. > > It's almost like saying that 'The forest is perfused with trees; > therefore, the forest is a tree'. > > Therefore although each of your premises might be in itself valid in its > own domain, I consider that putting them together leads to a false > conclusion -especially if we differ on the meaning of the terms [Sign]. > > Edwina > > On Mon 20/05/19 11:28 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, List: > > ET: All dogs are animals/All cats are animals. BOTH these premises are > true. Can I logically then state that All dogs are cats? > > > No, and why not? Because the conclusion does not follow necessarily from > the premisses; the form of the argumentation is invalid. The same is > true of the other examples below. Now consider a different one--all dogs > are animals, and Rover is a dog; can I logically then state that Rover is > an animal? Yes, because the conclusion does follow necessarily from the > premisses; the form of the argumentation is valid. My Semeiotic > Argumentation has exactly the same form as the second case, not the first > case or any of the others below; therefore, it is valid, such that the > conclusion does follow necessarily from the premisses. > > - Every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself = all dogs > are animals, and > - The entire Universe is a Sign = Rover is a dog; therefore, > - The entire Universe is determined by an Object other than itself = > Rover is an animal. > > So I suppose that I should have said explicitly what I took to be > obviously implied--for any valid deductive argumentation, the conclusion > is only as strong as the premisses. If one premiss is false, then the > conclusion is false, or at least unwarranted on the basis of that premiss; > e.g., if the entire Universe is not a Sign, or if Rover is not a dog. > However, anyone who affirms all of the premisses is rationally required > to affirm the conclusion, as well. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:04 AM Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> JAS, list >> >> The problem I have with this claim is that it is invalid. >> >> JAS: As with any logical or mathematical "proof"--i.e., any deductive >> argumentation--the >> conclusion is only as strong as the premisses. If one premiss is false, >> then the conclusion is false, or at least unwarranted on the basis of >> that premiss; but anyone who affirms all of the premisses is rationally >> required to affirm the conclusion, as well." >> >> For example, >> >> All dogs are animals/All cats are animals. BOTH these premises are true. >> Can I logically then state that All dogs are cats? >> >> How about: >> >> The robber wears size 12 boots/ You wear size 12 boots. Both premises are >> true. So, YOU are the bank robber. >> >> All plumbers repair sinks/ Henry repaired this sink. [both premises are >> true]. So- can we say that Henry is a plumber? >> >> All men are rational animals/No woman is a man. [All true]. Therefore no >> woman is a rational animal. >> >> And so on... >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
