Terry, List: TR: My intent was actually to suppose that it is only via the 2ns of the gravity waves per se ... as an indexical 2ns “*event*” – i.e., as change per se.
Thanks for clarifying, I agree with this. TR: So my question now is, in what sense are those gravity waves, at the moment of their initial physical manifestation, 3ns or even 2ns? I am not sure that it is appropriate to say that something "is" 1ns, 2ns, or 3ns, although I have probably used that language myself at times. Again, we arrive at the categories by *analyzing *whatever is or could be present to the mind into its irreducible elements. All three are always present in any phenomenon, so it is a matter of sorting out which *aspects *of whatever we are contemplating correspond to each one. Continuous space and time are manifestations of 3ns, as are the laws that govern the formation, propagation, and detection of gravity waves. Anything physical is primarily a manifestation of 2ns, including the gravity waves themselves. The qualities inhering in anything physical are manifestations of 1ns, but their very embodiment entails degenerate 2ns; we cannot perceive or even properly imagine *genuine *1ns, qualities as they are in themselves apart from any instantiation. TR: At that moment of origin, are they not purely iconic 1ns (becoming indexical 2ns upon completion of the first gravitational waveform, perhaps, 1ns prior to becoming ongoing cyclical change?)? Iconic/indexical/symbolic correspond to 1ns/2ns/3ns only within the context of semiosis, which also requires a sign/object/interpretant. Moreover, a *pure *icon would have no object, only an interpretant; and a *pure *index would have no interpretant, only an object. That is why Peirce describes iconic and indexical signs as *degenerate*, while symbolic signs--which always *involve* iconic and indexical signs--are *genuine* (EP 2:306-307, 1904). 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 11:00 PM Terry L Rankin <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, Edwina, List: > > > > I don’t think I stated or implied (or at least didn’t intend to do so) > that we can directly “experience” 1ns. My intent was actually to suppose > that it is only via the 2ns of the gravity waves per se (i.e., cycles of > compression/decompression affecting whatever media those waves move > through, e.g., as magnetic fields of nearby stars are affected or as > eventually detected by the LIGO observatory instruments), as an indexical > 2ns “*event*” – i.e., as *change* per se. > > > > So my question now is, in what sense are those gravity waves, at the > moment of their initial physical manifestation, 3ns or even 2ns? At the > instant of origin of the waveform itself -- not when or after they’ve begun > to propagate to impact other stars nearby (or at a distance), or finally > when LIGO instruments detect them, or reports are written about them in the > scientific literature – but at the moment of their ignition or inception in > the 1ns of that inspiral collision? At that moment of origin, are they not > purely iconic 1ns (becoming indexical 2ns upon completion of the first > gravitational waveform, perhaps, 1ns prior to becoming ongoing cyclical > change?)? > > > > What am I missing about CP 5.484, EP 2:411, 1907 (as quoted by JAS below) > that rules this out? > > > > TR > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
