Terry, Edwina, List: TR: Do I have that right?
No, I frankly do not see it that way at all. Again, the closest that we can come to "experiencing" 1ns is perceiving an unvarying sound or color, and even this is a poor approximation because it requires either the compression and decompression of air molecules or the oscillation of light waves at a certain frequency. According to Peirce, any *event *is a manifestation of 2ns (not 1ns) because it involves change, and any laws *governing *events are manifestations of 3ns--no human participation is necessary. All signs are also (paradigmatic) manifestations of 3ns, although they are iconic (1ns), indexical (2ns), and symbolic (3ns) to varying degrees. ET: Every 'action' is triadic. So, the stars imploding is a triadic action ... On the contrary, according to Peirce there are dyadic actions (2ns) and there are triadic "actions" (3ns), although I advocate confining this term to the former since it has the same root as *actual*. Terry even cited one of the relevant passages, but since he did not quote it, I will. CSP: All dynamical action, or action of brute force, physical or psychical, either takes place between two subjects,--whether they react equally upon each other, or one is agent and the other patient, entirely or partially,--or at any rate is a resultant of such actions between pairs. But 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. (CP 5.484, EP 2:411, 1907) The stars imploding is a dyadic/dynamical action. So is the *brute *effect of the resulting gravity waves on a scientific instrument. However, the *detection *of the waves--i.e., the recognition that the instrument's behavior is an indexical sign of their impinging upon it--and the *interpretation *of them in turn as an indexical sign of stars imploding are triadic/semiosic processes. Obviously, any subsequent communications about these matters are, as well. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 7:09 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Terry, list > > I'll take a different view. Every 'action' is triadic. So, the stars > imploding is a triadic action - and I'd say it has all three categories > functional in this implosion - regardless of who saw it, heard it or when. > Other stars certainly were 'aware'. > > Now - we can consider our reception of this event centuries after the > event. I consider that Robert Marty's outline of the lattice is an > excellent analytic framework for working through these steps from first > input of data to some kind of conclusion. > > 1] First - that human observer 'receives' this data input - as a triadic > sensation, a 'Rhematic Iconic Qualisign', ie, the triad's three relations > are all in a mode of 1ns.[1-1-1] All that this means is that the sense > data has been received. No interpretation. > > 2] But this first 'hit' immediately must acknowledge the differentiation > between the input external data [from the imploding star] and the receiver. > So, the experience could move into a rhematic iconic sinsign -[1-1-2] which > introduces the differentiation of 2ns as mediator by the sinsign of 2ns. > > 3] Then, this moves through the human observer's system - and - Thirdness > moves in, as this individual begins to get an 'idea' of what's going > on...and the sense data becomes a Rhematic Iiconic Legisign [the legisign > is 3ns].1-1-3 which makes use of this human's scientific experience stored > in 3ns. > > .- and then into a Rhematic Indexical Legisign [1-2-3] which continues > with the analysis of the actual indexical data in 2ns by using the > knowledge-based 3ns analysis [legisign]. Our individual might end the > process there...an individual interpretation of local stimuli as referenced > to a general rule. > > or..might go further..and come up with a Dicent symbolic Legisign > [2-3-3]..which is viewing the input data as a conclusion of the analysis > and, eg, deciding that all this data is the 'particular attribute of the > law-of-imploding stars. It becomes a part of the 'scholarly analysis'...and > can be what is reported in journals. > > I hope this isn't too confusing. [Robert Marty also explains how this > path, moving from first sensate input can also go very wrong, and can move > away from the actuality of the hard data in 2ns...and move into 'magical > thinking'! > > Edwina > > Stars imploding long before humanity came into being and presence on Earth > (an event of 1ns) emit gravity waves > <https://scitechdaily.com/violent-neutron-star-collision-sends-gravitational-waves-shuddering-through-the-fabric-of-space-and-time/#:~:text=When%20two%20neutron%20stars%20spiral,collision%20of%20two%20black%20holes.>. > Those waveforms travel through time and space until eons upon eons later > they’re detected by a human observer on Earth (2ns) in 2015. After > confirmation and concurrence, the data and event are reported in scientific > journals (3ns). While semiotic 2ns is an (indexical?) relation connecting > the waves with the collision, semiosic 3ns relations only began in 2015 > with the human observation and reporting thereof (EP 2.411). > > Do I have that right? > > > > Terry > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
