I spent a lot of time addressing you an argumentative answer (because I only do answers of this type, and I almost never start a post with "In my opinion ..." or "I think that ..." Etc... unless I am asked, which I must admit is quite rare). I have shown using the basic concepts of category theory that although you forget about determination relationships - which led you to your "compositions" they were present in the back office simply because you respect the categorial memberships of the elements of the sign in your notations (the rule for placing numbers 1,2,3 in the corners of the triangle for those who use that representation). You get the classes but you lose the classifications. There are no levels or trees in your production.
I read above that you write this:
"What I call "functional composition" is a complete or triadic function consisting of other functions. In a sign triad, only the sign is such a triadic functional composition, as it consists of three functions (correlates, including the sign itself), but the object is not, as it does not have an interpretant. I was guessing that this "missing link", as I have once called it, between the object and the performer is somehow the reason for complexity. "
You now guess a "missing link between the object and the interpretant" in a response that is not addressed to me personally and you evoke a source of inspiration that I unfortunately cannot consult. I'm in a kind of expectation ... but may be it's a jet lag thing? 😉
Edwina, Jon, List,I guess the contradictions base partly on terms. That you, Jon, said, that "these three are distinct correlates", I would agree, in your (and maybe Peirce´s) use of terms. They are distinct, because they are not spatiotemporally composed. A dynamic object can be light years away and in the far past. I have subsumed it under "composition", in the sense of functional composition, not spatiotemporal composition, but the term "functional composition" is by me, not by Peirce. I guess it is the same like your (and Peirce´s) "correlation". The reason for me to subsume this under "composition" was, to have a distinction between composition and classification, or between a composition and a class. I use this distinction to show, that in a composition a whole triadicity (the levels I have written about) is there, but in a class not. To the distinction between composition and classification I was inspired by Stanley N. Salthe (I cannot find the name of the paper now).What I call "functional composition" is a complete or triadic function consisting of other functions. In a sign triad, only the sign is such a triadic functional composition, as it consists of three functions (correlates, including the sign itself), but the object is not, as it does not have an interpretant correlation. I was guessing that this "missing link", as I have once called it, between the object and the interpretant is somehow the reason for complexity. Otherwise, I guess, if all three correlates were equally connected with each other, there just would be a static sponge-like structure with normal logic of relations.Because in this functional composition a sign consists of itself plus the other two correlates, or functional parts, as I would call them, I assumed, that in a functional composition, other than in a spatiotemporal one, such a thing is possible, which I had called "re-entry": Something consisting of itself plus other things. Whether or not this has to do with Spencer-Brown´s "re-entry", I am not sure.But there is a lot of guessing and not-ready thoughts or assumptions in my way of seeing it.Best,Helmut27. April 2020 um 16:14 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]>Perhaps I shouldn't reply to this - since it's a discussion that will go nowhere, since both JAS and I have our own interpretations of Peirce!But- I personally find it misleading to assert that the Dynamic Object exists on its own. My view is that NOTHING in this world 'exists' as itself so to speak but rather within the networked interactions of triadic semiosis. So- yes, objects, be they stones, plants, insects or...require Signs [both the triad and the representamen] in order to 'exist'.
My understanding of Peirce is that objects...just the simple thing that is an 'object' - do exist as they are, outside of MY interaction and interpretation [and there's no need to drag up the Peircean quote to assert this; most of us know it already]...but my understanding of semiosis is that these objects, with which I am not in a semiosic interaction - ARE in some semiosic interaction - be it with the sand, the sun, other insects or the water.
But- my view of Peircean semiosis is that this object - when it is in that semiosic interaction - is only then functioning as a Dynamic Object - and as such, the term only refers to that object when-in-that-semiosic-interaction. And certainly, the representamen, as the mediator, doesn't 'exist' per se but only functions as its mediative habits - within the triad.
And yes- I see the triad as composed of monads [nodes or sites of information activity] in interactive relations. The result is - a single whole, ie, a stone, a cell, an atom, an insect...which are all themselves, perfused with triadic 'mind-as-matter'.
So- we differ greatly in our personal interpretations of Peirce. There's no point in arguing about this to a 'who is the winner'; there should only be, I think, the opportunity to express these differences - which is what this List is all about. I have no desire to persuade JAS or get him to change his mind. I am merely saying that I don't agree with HIS interpretation and providing my own interpretation. As to who is 'most accurate - I think that's not up to the authors.
Edwina
On Sun 26/04/20 9:46 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected] sent:Helmut, Edwina, List:I personally find it misleading to say that the dynamical object does not exist on its own, because this wrongly implies that it requires a sign to represent it in order to exist. On the contrary, the dependence is the other way around--a sign has no being on its own, but must be determined by a dynamical object. On the other hand, I acknowledge that something does not function as a dynamical object unless and until it determines a sign to represent it.I also personally find it misleading to say that a sign is composed of a sign, an object, and an interpretant. Again, these are three distinct correlates of a genuine triadic relation, not three parts of a single whole.Regards,Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran LaymanOn Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 11:03 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:Supplement: And if you ask: "What does a rhematic iconic qualisign consist of?", and the answer is "Rheme, icon, and qualisign", you might argue that now you are talking about a composition, but effectively the way of composition applies to all signs, so you really are talking about a special kind of this general composition, so about a class of composition, so about a class.Edwina, List,I think, if yoiu ask: "What kind of sign is it?", then you might get the answer: "A Qualisign", you regard the sign as class now, and in this respect there is no triadicity (but mostly degenerateness). But if you ask: "What is a sign (better: Sign or Sign triad) composed of?", then you get the answer: "Sign, object, interpretant", or "Sign itself (aka sign-sign-relation), sign-object-relation, and sign-interpretant relation", and you are talking about a composition. If you ask: "How many sign classes are there?", and the answer is "10", you are talking about a complete group, which is a composition.Best,HelmutHelmut - Could you explain to me the difference between a Qualisign, which in a specific instance, is a 'feeling of heat' as a 'composition' vs a 'class' of such instances? Isn't the composition of this particular example - the same as it is in the 'class'?
I am aware that a 'class' would refer to ALL such instances where all three relations in the triad are in the category of Firstness, but, why do you seem to infer that ONE example of such a class means that one can't 'assign all three categorical modes'.
Sorry- but you've lost me on this!
Edwina
On Sun 26/04/20 11:22 AM , "Helmut Raulien" [email protected] sent:Edwina, List,sorry for my overlapping posts. I think for assigning all three categorial modes from a triad, this only works with compositions, not with classes. "rhematic iconic qualisign" is a class, 1-1-1. It is a class of a composition, but a class. A class is not a categorial triad. The groups of 10, 28, and 66 sign classes are compositions of classes of compositions, so compositions, and the complete triadicity applies to them (to these groups). "S-O-I" too is a composition, also "SS-SO-SI". To both the complete triadicity applies, due to the level consisting of 3, 6, 10, 15,...28...66... completely triadically arranged characters.Best,Helmut26. April 2020 um 17:02 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:Helmut - no, in my view, the object - which to be accurate, should better be referred to as the DO [Dynamic Object] when it's in the triad - doesn't exist 'per se' - on its own.
It only 'exists' within that triadic interaction - and its nature when 'grabbed' so to speak, in that interaction is to provide input data which is transformed/mediated by the Representamen/sign and thus 'interpreted' as an Interpretant.
So- what is the categorical mode of the relation between the DO and the R? We see from the ten classes that it can be in any of the three modal categories. Three of the ten have the input from the DO in a mode of Firstness; four are in a mode of Secondness and three in a mode of Thirdness. That is - the interaction between the Representamen and the DO can lose data!
So, for example, in a Qualisign, where the relation between R and DO is in a mode of Firstness - and the result is a 'feeling of heat'.....this particular triad hasn't picked up that the feeling of heat comes from a red-hot stove burner.
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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
