List
I'd like to continue the discussion about the difference between
the semiosic triad and the three categories.
First- perhaps to help clarify these differences, my view about the
current discussion/debate on the EG notations, is that these
discussions are not semiotic but semiology. My view is that
semiology refers to 'translation' and is a dyadic process, where an
external agent translates 'this' to 'that'. It's confined, obviously,
to symbols and human agency. It can be quite a necessary action,
helping to clarify a plethora of words into a coherent valid and
sound logical argument.
But semiosis is completely different. It is triadic and not engaged
in translation but in transformation. It achieves this by the
insertion of that mediative function....as in O-R-I or
input-mediation-output. Furthermore, semiosis as a triad enables
morphological existence; the triad exists in itself in time and space
and does not require an external agent.
In Terry's example. the star exists as such within a triadic process
of input [energy] mediated by its physical laws and output [light,
energy]. It was a coherent morphological entity. When it imploded,
due to its laws of mediation....that energy/informational content
TRANSFORMED into another morphological entity. Also functioning
within that triadic format [O-R-I or input/mediation/output].
The nature of this new morphological entity existed not as a single
star but as massive waves of matter/energy...which interacted with
other morphological entities such as other stars, planets, and
transformed them according to their mediative laws..and etc.
AND...interacted with that far-off human observer who, himself a
triad, received the input of 'light' from this far-off implosion.
And, again, using Marty's lattice, this input of data went through a
set of semiosic classes to arrive at a final interpretant by the
human of 'this data refers to an imploding star'. {eg, 1-1-1..and on
to 1-1-2 and so on.].
Note that the first input is in a pure mode of Firstness, which
means - it's an unexamined and purely physical acceptance of an input
stimuli....like that feeling of heat when touching the hot stove. This
immediately moves into 1-1-2, where the sensation is
acknowledged/reacted to...as an external stimulus-- by the mediation
of physical secondness. There is no, as yet, 'Mind' involved...but
this mode of 3ns later moves into the interaction..
This means that the three categories refer to how this matter is
organized as a morphological entity, both in itself and in
interaction with other morphological entities. Peirce's 9 Relations
[icon, index, symbol for the Object Relation; and Qualisign, Sinsign,
Legisign for the Mediative/Representamen Relation; and Rhematic,
Dicent, Argument for the Interpretant Relation] show us that the
addition of these categorical modes enable complexity and diversity
of morphological forms and their interactions.
Categorically, how would that Star be formed? It would have all
three categorical modes operative. For example, its mediative
Relation would function within 1ns as a 'holder' of energy; within
2ns as a reactive acceptance of this energy, and as 3ns, expressing
the laws of physics that forms and operates this energy. Its input
interactions with the external world would be operating in both 1ns
and 2ns...i.e., 'sensing the input of new energy' and reacting to
this new input'. Its output/interpretant would be equally in 1ns and
2ns as local transformations of this energy into light and matter.
Note that the star is a triadic process and thus semiosic in
itself...it doesn't require that far-off human agent to acknowledge
this.
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 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.
