Edwina, List: ET: I'd like to continue the discussion about the difference between the semiosic triad and the three categories.
I have changed the subject line accordingly. ET: 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. EG obviously falls within logic, which Peirce generalizes as semeiotic. It is a diagrammatic system of signs for representing propositions (speculative grammar) and their valid transformations within deductive arguments (critic), and for a time Peirce believes that he can even use it in a proof of his pragmatism (methodeutic). There is nothing "semiological" about it, especially since all the signs employed in it are triadic when the scroll is retained for implication and disjunction--also the sheet itself for coexistence, letters for propositions (Alpha) or names for general concepts (Beta), the line of identity for indefinite objects (Beta), and the syntax for pure predicates. The only dyadic sign is the cut/oval for negation when it is treated as if it were a primitive rather than properly derived from the implication of falsity/absurdity. ET: Furthermore, semiosis as a triad enables morphological existence; the triad exists in itself in time and space and does not require an external agent. According to Peirce, a triad is not something that *exists* in time and space, it is a real *relation *with three correlates; and these may be in any of the three Universes of Possibles, Existents, and Necessitants. A *genuine *triad, like that in which a sign (1st correlate) mediates between its object (2nd correlate) and its interpretant (3rd correlate), is one that cannot be reduced to the three dyadic relations between pairs of those correlates. ET: Also functioning within that triadic format [O-R-I or input/mediation/output]. No, as I said before, *genuine *semiosis cannot be reduced to functional input and output. That would be *degenerate *semiosis, which is dynamical action. ET: 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. No, as I said before, the sensation of heat when touching the hot stove is a manifestation of 2ns; so is *anything *physical. Only the *quality *of the feeling, *prescinded *from the actual sensation, corresponds to 1ns. ET: 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. No, as I said before, Peirce's three categories refer to whatever is or could be present to the mind. We can *apply *them while analyzing how matter is organized to distinguish *aspects *of that particular phenomenon corresponding to 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns; but this is not the context in which the categories *themselves *are fundamentally defined. ET: 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. It is misleading to talk about "Peirce's 9 Relations" since he never describes them that way himself. In his 1903 taxonomy, there are three correlates and three trichotomies, resulting in ten classes. The first division is according to the *nature *of the sign itself (qualisign/sinsign/legisign)--there is no such thing as a "representamen *relation*"--while the other two are according to the sign's relation with its object (iconic/indexical/symbolic) and the sign's relation with its interpretant (rhematic/dicent/argument). This is not just my personal opinion, it is the well-established consensus among Peirce scholars based on what he plainly states in the relevant texts. Of course, his later taxonomies recognize two objects (immediate/dynamical) and three interpretants (immediate/dynamical/final), consistent with Robert Marty's podium diagram ( https://www.academia.edu/41574474/The_podium_of_the_universal_categories_of_C_S_Peirce). Besides the six trichotomies according to the mode of presentation (S/IO/II), mode of being (DO/DI), or purpose (FI) of each correlate, there are four divisions according to their external relations with the sign (DO-S/S-FI/S-DI/DO-S-FI), resulting in 66 classes once all ten are arranged in the proper logical sequence--by contrast, a matter of considerable controversy among Peirce scholars. ET: Categorically, how would that Star be formed? It would have all three categorical modes operative. I can agree with this much in the sense that all three categories are always present in every phenomenon within our existing universe. However, I cannot make heads or tails of what comes after it because 1ns/2ns/3ns are treated as "categorical modes" in which relations "function" and interactions "operate" (whatever all that means) rather than as *universal categories* obtained from analyzing whatever is or could be present to the mind into its irreducible elements, which is how Peirce defines them. It might very well be an accurate and useful description for some purposes, but unfortunately it does not conform to his carefully formulated ethics of terminology. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 6:54 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
