[peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about?

[Jim Piat]

Dear Ben , Folks--   Ben wrote:   >> But, again, why is the interpretant's separate leg to the object "part" of the semiosis, but the recognition's separate leg to the object _not_ "part" of the semiosis in question? That's just inconsistent.  If the interpretant's separate leg to the object is essential to making the semiosis triadic, then why isn't the collaterally based recognition's separate leg to the object essential in making the semiosis tetradic? In fact, that's essential to why semiosis is tetradic.>>     And then, Ben, you answer your own question (at least to my satisfaction) by saying:   >> At no stage does semiosis happen in a vaccuum. The criterion of whether something is or isn't part of the semiosis in question is, simply that the thing arise in the course of the semiosis in question and as determined by the semiosis in question at least up to that point, and contribute semiotic determination from its point onward to any further development of the semiosis in question. The recognition arises as determined by the semiosis and in the course of the semiosis, it is determined by the semiosis and by the object and other semiotic elements through the semiosis and collaterally by the object of the semiosis, and from that point onward _any and all_ further development in the semiosis in question is also determined, logically, semiotically, by that recognition. That recognition is a decision point in the semiosis in question. It's part of the semiosis in question, very much so indeed.>>   What follows, Ben,  are just some thoughts on the issues you raise.  Not refutations of your thoughts  -- just collateral.  Part of the same thread and thus something we have, I think, in common.    Perhaps, when a person first learns the meaning of a symbol (for example a young child first symbolizes the object tree) what that person acquires is a  habit which is continually being modified or learned anew.  From start to finish the process of learning the meaning of a symbol is the same  -- a process of acquiring the habits of use of a community of sign users.  The first exposure to the use of the word tree involves the modification of old habits and this continues throughout ones participation in semiosis.  We never learn a totatly new habit even when we first acquire the use of a new symbol.  We are a symbol or creature of habit from the get go and all learning or interpretation is a modification of some prior habit.  The winowing of alternative interpretations or modification of prior habits based upon collateral experience occurs with every use or exposure to a symbol  -- from begining to end.    And we don't learn or acquire new symbols outside of a community of folks who already use that symbol or some close approximation of it.  And all conscious perception is a matter of  symbolization.  (I'll just assert that -;)   Collateral experience of an object is not some sort of priviledge experience that is more fundamental than the symbolic experience of or reference to an object.  They are the same sort of experience. In both cases what constitutes our conception of the object is not some entitity existing outside of semiosis but rather a "habit of reference or use" that is embedded in that collective community activity of coordinating our behavior toward a common goal of group survival.   Objects are known only through our shared communal habits of reference.  And these habits are continually being modified individually and collectively  -- whether they involve children just learning them or old folks trying desparately to recall them.  We don't live in a a world of symbols along side a world of objects.  The world of objects exists for us only within our world of symbols.  This is not to say we have invented the objects by some feat of imagination but merely that we have no access to them other than through symbolization.  Symbolization is our window to what we commonly call being aware of or perceiving objects.  To perceive a tree is to symbolize a tree -- to acquire a habit of reference common to one's language community.  All of our habits from start to finish are embedded in a context that is continually shifting.  Adjusting our habits to this shifting context is what we call learning.   Just some thoughts, Ben.  Enjoying your discussion with Gary Joe and others.   Jim Piat     --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com