Auke - thanks for your comments.
1] Yes, I now see your point, with 'one monad interacting with
another monad' - and I agree.
2] With regard to your rejection that the categories operate as
linear modes - I accept your explanation.
3] And I fully agree with you on the rejection of ideological goals
in a discussion and analysis!
Edwina
On Fri 10/04/20 4:47 AM , Auke van Breemen a.bree...@chello.nl
sent:
Edwina,
You wrote:
In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads
[Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with
other full triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both
genuine and degenerate [1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1].
--
Also in my view, but I keep insisting that it is possible to look
at this complexus as a monad entering an interaction with another
monad, the complexus being involved. For instance when describing an
interaction and its ensuing proces of interpretation we just start
with identifying the actors. I don't think we disagree on this
point. what is involved will evolve in the process of analizis. Which
in order to be relatively complete must deal with two processes: 1.
'a,b-result' and 2. 'b,a -result'.
You wrote:
3] You say that a citizen or government can be considered a monad
[Firstness] .which then interacts [Secondness]..etc. I disagree with
this, for it seems to be using the categories within a linear order,
ie, setting them up as ordinals where First=Firstness, and
Second=Secondness and Third=Thirdness. I disagree with such an
analysis.
--
I can't easily respond to this for the risk of suffering from a lack
of understanding the meaning. Do you state that you disagree with me
raising that impression of linearity, knowing that I don't commit
that fault or are you politely stating that I take matters linear?
If the latter, I disagree. In KiF the input output relation stands
as a line perpendicular on the diamond, in the center at the index
position, signifying the cotagation of all involved triadic
relations. The plane is for analytical purposes. It is structured
according to the categorical dependency relations, but has to be
filled in with the telos of the proces of investigation in mind and
explicated in the procress description.
You wrote:
Although, I note that Peirce's cosmology puts Firstness as First]
And then...we begin to disagree.
--
For me the primacy issue is a matter of different ways of looking at
matters. Akin to Aristotles remark on first in the order of being as
contrasted to the order of knowledge. Or Stampers distinction
between a radical subjectivist and an actualist perspective on
matters. As long as no ideological goals are served by the
discussion, I am fine with either approach.
Auke
Op 9 april 2020 om 14:46 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
Auke - Thanks for your comments...I'll continue with my own comments
1] I don't say that my view is not suited/or is suited to political
issues. I was only discussing the categorical mode of Thirdness, and
since Thirdness is an action providing rule-based continuity- then,
of course, it functions within the political or societal realm of
life. Thirdness of course, not does function alone [see 5.436]. None
of the categories, really, function alone.
2] I agree therefore that the Sign, as a triad, is the point of
departure - not the nature of Thirdness. [Nor, indeed, are any of the
categories the 'point of departure'. Although, I note that Peirce's
cosmology puts Firstness as First] And then...we begin to disagree.
3] You say that a citizen or government can be considered a monad
[Firstness] .which then interacts [Secondness]..etc. I disagree with
this, for it seems to be using the categories within a linear order,
ie, setting them up as ordinals where First=Firstness, and
Second=Secondness and Third=Thirdness. I disagree with such an
analysis.
In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads
[Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with
other full triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both
genuine and degenerate [1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1].
So, if we use as an example, a government or society as a full
triadic Sign, then, it could be reacting to the action of another
government or agency [its Object] within a mode of Secondness [eg,
9-11]; where the govt, first reacts to the impact of 2ns, and the
Immediate Interpretant is in a mode of 1ns; the next is 2ns - and
then, using its knowledge base within the Representamen, the Final
Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. But these are not linear; they are
'experiences' so to speak and more complex.
Edwina
On Thu 09/04/20 4:28 AM , Auke van Breemen a.bree...@chello.nl
sent:
Edwina,
Thanks for the clarification. It seems to point to the difference
in our respective approaches, and I agree that yours is not ideally
suited to adress political issues. For completeness sake: for me, a
sign that fulfills its sign-function in raising interpretant signs
(responses) is the point of departure, not the nature of thirdness
and its degenerate modes. So, for me a citizen or government can be
looked at as two monads A,B (firstness), that on a specific occasion
interact AB (secondness), with a response C as a consequence (a first
until it interacts itself). The description of the process that leads
to the response intends to express the law(s) (thirdness) that
governs the process. The distinctions made with regard to signs
(small or 1902/3 classification) scaffold the description.
Best, Auke
Op 8 april 2020 om 23:32 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
Auke - thanks for your post.
In this analysis, I'm looking at only the operation of Thirdness in
both its genuine and degenerate modes. That is - I'm not considering
the nature of the triad, ie, the Sign [a member of society, a
government].I am not considering the triadic relations which make up
a Sign. I am considering only of the category of Thirdness - which
is the 'medium or connecting bond'. 1.337. that is Thirdness sets up
commonalities.
Thirdness, operating within a degenerate mode, i.e., within
Secondness - sets up a specific type of commonality.an existential
'physical connection' , as an example, Peirce tells us of how 'a pin
fastens two things together by sticking through one and also through
the other. 1.366. My view of this 'pin' in a society is that
'networked interactive community. This is not necessarily
intentional; it is indeed almost accidental, in that proximity within
a common location binds the individual units into some kind of
cohesion.
Thirdness, operating within Firstness - suggests 'resemblance
between forms' [1.367] - something which he refers to also as 'Thirds
of comparison. My view of this in a society, understood as a
collection of individuals [not a random set] is that there is a
certain degree of similarity of type that established that
commonality in this population. Therefore - some aspects cannot be
'decided on one's own'; for the point of a collection is its
commonality.
As for genuine Thirdness - I don't see it as a 'networked
interactive community' - for I consider that this 'network' relies on
the existence [2ns] of 'things'...which is why I see the networked
interactive community as 'things [people] held together by some
common idea [3ns].
But genuine Thirdness, in my view, remains as pure thought - 'that
which is what it is by virtue of imparting a quality to reactions in
the future' [1.343]
Edwina
On Wed 08/04/20 4:40 PM , a.bree...@chello.nl sent:
Edwina,
In your take at the matter a 'networked interactive community' and
índividuals interacting' seem to me not to be on the same plane. I
am inclined to see the first as a 3.3 and the second as a 3.2.
And, your 3.1 'mimetic population' is if taken as a sign aspect
iconicity, which is in basic semiotics of categorical value 2.1 so if
lifted to belong at bottom to thirdness a 3.2.1. if government only
offers suggestive (rheme 3.1) examples, individuals in the populace
are left to decide on their own.
Since member of society and governemt are to be regarded as signs,
we are able to at least look at the matter from three perspectives
for each. Sign in itself, sign in relation to iets object and sign as
it adrfresses its interpreting sign.
Auke
Op 7 april 2020 om 16:58 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
Auke
Governance, if we want to use a Peircean category to analyze it,
would always have to be within the mode of Thirdness.
Now- whether the governing mode is 3-1 [Thirdness operating in a
mode of Firstness, which sets up a mimetic population] ; or 3-2,
[Thirdness operating in a mode of Secondness] which sets up a
networked interactive population [ie, individuals interacting]; or
3-3 [Thirdness operating in a mode of Thirdness] - which is pure
ideology detached from a population - well, I think we could analyze
such a framework. Not easy of course.
But the article did not deal with the categories in this way;
instead, it simply too each category 'in itself' and judged how it
would operate as the guiding principle of a society. I disagree with
such a tactic for the reasons I already gave.
Edwina
On Tue 07/04/20 10:10 AM , Auke van Breemen a.bree...@upcmail.nl
sent:
Edwina, list,
I feel inclined to give a less unfavorite response to the
suggestion, although the way of putting things is too crude.
if we want to look at diferent kinds of governments from a
categorical perspective. The first thing we must admid is that always
the categorical distinction must be taken in a relative way, i.e. it
is about a firstness, secondness and thirdness aspect of a third.
If taken in this way we could design a Trikon (taken as a ternary
plot), dealing with control in society. First monad is self control
or anarchy, second node is complete control or dictatorship and the
third is representive government with free elections.
Now, it is immediately evident that all governments we score on the
trikon partake in all three aspects but differ in the mixture.
With respect to the pandemic, we must accept that at this moment we
cannot say which type of political response proves best. What we can
do is wait for the results, investigate the measures taken and
associate them with a score on the Trikon. And next look at the
consequences each of the governments harvested.
But all that is stuff to be discussed on the list and elsewhere. I
guess the main intent after the message was: in harsh times people
are inclined to look after each other, lets not forget keeping doing
that once the cirsis is resolved. I symphatize with that.
Kind regards,
Auke van Breemen
Op 7 april 2020 om 14:44 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
I disagree completely with this politicization of the Peircean
categories. I consider that is shows a complete misunderstanding of
the categories. I won't comment on the, what I feel are incorrect,
political references. Just the description of the categories.
I disagree that Firstness can be compared to 'capitalism' which is,
after all, an economic system based around the individual freedom of
private enterprise; I disagree that Firstness refers only to the
individual 'I' and even 'should' disappear.
All three categories in the Peircean framework are necessary
categories and none of them should be reduced or are 'privileged'.
Edwina
On Mon 06/04/20 10:37 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
List,
Below is a brief report which the distinguished Colombian scholar,
Professor Fernando Zalamea ( Universidad Nacional de Colombia) ,
Coordinator of the G rupo de Estudios Peirceano , prepared at the
request of the Colombian Ministry of Science concerning the
coronavirus pandemic. It was first published late in March, 2020.
The report was recently featured in a Spanish scholarly newsletter,
edited by Professors Jaime Nubiola, Sara Barrena, Izaskun Martínez,
who commented that the report " muestra de manera práctica cómo
el pensamiento de Charles S. Peirce ayuda a pensar situaciones tan
dramáticas como la presente" ("shows in a practical way how the
thought of Charles S. Peirce helps in thinking about situations as
dramatic as the present one.")
Here follows the brief report, first in Spanish and then in my
(rough) English translation (please refer to the original Spanish
version). GR
Breve texto sobre la pandemia desde una perspectiva triádica
peirceana.
Fernando Zalamea
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
En la arquitectónica del saber según Charles Sanders Peirce (USA,
1839-1914), tres categorías universales gobiernan los fenómenos:
primeridad (lo que es en tanto tal, predicado monádico), segundidad
(lo que es en tanto se correlaciona con otro, relación binaria) y
terceridad (lo que es en tanto sirve de mediación en una polaridad,
relación ternaria). Un caso particular de estas categorías se
refiere a la sintaxis (lenguaje), la semántica (modelos) y la
pragmática (transferencias).
En el caso actual de la pandemia que vive el mundo (abril 2020),
sobresalen algunos aspectos centrales desde un punto de vista
filosófico, metodológico y matemático. Ante todo, resalta (A) la
universalidad del fenómeno: rompe con cualquier tipo de
distinción nacional y con cualquier tipo de estratificación social.
A todos afecta y todos la sufren. Por supuesto, los más vulnerables
(económica o físicamente) la sufrirán más, pero la pandemia cubre
un espectro social muy amplio. Es plenamente tercera en el sentido
de Peirce y media entre todos los seres humanos.
Esto conlleva unas directrices éticas básicas, que ojalá sirvan
en el futuro para construir sociedades más equilibradas, allende el
capitalismo salvaje (primeridad exacerbada) que ha venido destruyendo
el mundo en las últimas décadas. No es ningún azar que los
populistas tipo Trump, Bolsonaro o Johnson hayan querido reducir la
importancia del fenómeno.
La primera directriz es la importancia de luchar contra el egoísmo:
la terceridad y la universalidad conllevan un darse a los demás, un
pensar allende singularidades aisladas (primeridad). Es fascinante
observar cómo el “yo”, un “en-sí” de muchas maneras
repugnante, desaparece a favor del “en-múltiple”, de las redes
de apoyo entre los individuos.
La segunda directriz, correlacionada estrechamente con la primera,
es la importancia de ser solidarios: cuidarnos a nosotros mismos es
cuidar de los demás, y viceversa (de ahí el valor de los
confinamientos). Dentro de esa línea solidaria, es hermoso ver
cómo, en tiempos de dolor y de crisis, las comunidades se ayudan
entre sí para superar duras condiciones de subsistencia.
Luego, sobresale (B) la integralidad sintética del fenómeno.
Allende la arbitrariedad de las informaciones y los abusos del
lenguaje (caso paradigmático, USA), la única solución posible
parece ser una actuación colectiva correlativa (pragmática), donde
todas las partes, desde los individuos hasta las instituciones,
trabajen mancomunadamente hacia un fin bien definido. Acá se observa
la importancia de actuaciones coherentes a nivel de mandatorios
locales, como el Gobernador Cuomo en New York, o como la alcadesa
López en Bogotá. En esos casos, las directrices están bien
estructuradas (terceridad, a favor de todos), aunque muchos
individuos indisciplinados (primeridad) rompan el patrón trazado.
Los centenares de miles de muertos que se avecinan en USA serán el
trágico ejemplo de una actuación profundamente insolidaria. Al
opuesto, el cuidado colectivo conseguido en Taiwan debería ser
tomado como modelo a seguir.
Como se ve, un uso elemental de las categorías peirceanas nos lleva
a pensar en el bien común, muy por encima del bien individual. Es una
cuestión de supervivencia. Ojalá las tragedias que produzca la
pandemia sirvan a las nuevas generaciones para orientar mejor el
futuro, un porvenir que debe pasar ante todo por el aprecio múltiple
de los demás, para solo llegar luego al bienestar de los individuos.
fernandozala...@gmail.com
Brief report on the pandemic from a Peircean triadic perspective.
Fernando Zalamea
National University of Colombia
In the architecture of knowledge of Charles Sanders Peirce (USA,
1839-1914), three universal categories govern the phenomena:
firstness (what is as such, monadic predicate), secondness (what is
insofar as it correlates with another, relationship binary) and
thirdness (which is insofar as it mediates a polarity, a ternary
relationship). A particular case of these categories refers to syntax
(language), semantics (models) and pragmatics (transferences,
transactions?)
In the current case of the world pandemic (April 2020), some central
aspects stand out from a philosophical, methodological and
mathematical point of view. Above all, (A) it highlights the
universality of the phenomenon: it breaks with any type of national
distinction and with any type of social stratification. It affects
everyone and everyone suffers it. Of course, the most vulnerable
(financially or physically) will suffer the most, but the pandemic
covers a very broad social spectrum. It is fully third in the Peirce
sense of being in the midst of all human beings.
This entails basic ethical guidelines, which hopefully will serve in
the future to build more balanced societies, beyond the savage
capitalism (exacerbated firstness) that has been destroying the world
in recent decades. It is no coincidence that populists like Trump,
Bolsonaro or Johnson have wanted to minimize the importance of the
phenomenon.
The first guideline is the importance of fighting against
selfishness: thirdness and universality involve giving oneself to
others, thinking beyond isolated singularities (firstness). It is
fascinating to observe how the “I”, a repugnant “in-itself”
in many ways, disappears in favor of the “multiple,” of the
support networks between individuals.
The second guideline, closely correlated with the first, is the
importance of being supportive: caring for ourselves is caring for
others, and vice versa (hence, the value of self-confinement). Within
this line of solidarity, it is beautiful to see how, in times of pain
and crisis, communities help each other to overcome harsh living
conditions.
Then, (B) the synthetic integrality of the phenomenon stands out.
Beyond the arbitrariness of information and the abuse of language
(paradigmatic case, USA), the only possible solution seems to be a
correlative (pragmatic) collective action, where all parties, from
individuals to institutions, work together towards a well-defined end
result. Here we see the importance of coherent actions at the level of
local high officials, such as Governor Cuomo in New York, or Mayor
López in Bogotá. In these cases, the guidelines are well structured
(third party, in everyone's favor), although many undisciplined
individuals (first party) break the established pattern. The hundreds
of thousands of deaths looming in the USA will be the tragic example
of deeply unsupportive action. On the contrary, the collective care
achieved in Taiwan should be taken as a role model.
As can be seen, an elemental use of the Peircean categories leads us
to think about the common good, far above the individual good. It is a
matter of survival. Hopefully the tragedies caused by the pandemic
will serve new generations in better guiding us toward the future, a
future that must first of all pass the appreciative assent of many,
only to later reach the well-being of actual individuals.
fernandozala...@gmail.com
"TIME IS NOT A RENEWABLE RESOURCE." GNOX
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
[1]
Virus-free. www.avg.com
-----------------------------
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 [2] .
Links:
------
[1]
http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
[2] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
-----------------------------
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 .
