BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
Gary- you've inserted quite a few straw men arguments in your
response.
1] First - in response to your 'ad populum' and 'straw man'
argument' - it is not the case that the majority of Peircean scholars
consider that the triad has no existential reality. After all - are
you actually going to say that a word, an image - and I refer you to
any of the ten classes to provide examples of existential triads -
have no existential reality? Is it the case that an iconic sinsign,
"an individual diagram" has no existential reality as itself???
[2.255]. How about a rhemetic indexical sinsign , "a spontaneous cry"
2.256] - does it not also have an existential reality as itself?
2] In addition, you are misunderstanding what I mean by this lack of
an external agent. What I mean is that, unlike Saussurian semiology,
which requires an external agent to move the input data to the output
interpretation [signifier to signified], the Peircean triad inserts
mediation within the semiosic unit. Therefore, the process is
'self-organized' and does not require that external agent.
3] In addition, I think that our discussions ought to remain 'our
own' discussions and not rely on the assumed and asserted 'authority
of the majority' to prove our points.
4] And it's a straw man to deviate from my meaning of an
existential reality to reduce the meaning of the term 'existence' to
something only operative in a mode of 2ns. And where did I reduce the
triad to dyadic relations?
I also disagree with your reduction of the nature of 'functions' to
a dyadic action; and also, your rejection of the terms of 'input and
output' to only 'dynamic actions'. I certainly don't use those terms
in such a reductionist meaning. And you cannot claim that these words
have only ONE meaning. Remember, the algebraic form of 'function' - is
a triad. And there is absolutely nothing against the views of Peirce
with using the term 'input' to refer to an incoming amount of data -
and the term 'output' to refer to an interpretation of that data via
the mediative function.
And how do the terms 'interaction' and 'operation' become reduced
to dyadic acts??? Can't three nodes in a semiosic set 'interact' and
'operate' co-operatively??
You and JAS may consider these terms unacceptable - but - you
cannot go beyond your personal views to define them as 'not
Peircean'.
2] I disagree that all three categorical modes are operative in
every semiosic action. Again, consider the ten classes, and four of
the six, ie, 40% do NOT include 3ns - and for good reason. Most
certainly, the six that DO include 3ns also include 1ns and 2ns, but
our universe does not operate only within laws - but within the
capacity for randomness, chance [1ns] and pure mechanical
interactions[2ns]. A universe operative only within laws would be
unable to allow change, would prevent adaptation and evolution. Thee
has to be, in our universe, the capacity for utter novelty - After all
- to deny this also denies possibility.
Edwina
On Sun 28/03/21 1:54 AM , Gary Richmond [email protected]
sent:
Jon, Edwina, List,
Edwina wrote: semiosis as a triad enables morphological existence;
the triad exists in itself in time and space and does not require an
external agent.
As apparently both you and I see it, Jon, in agreement with the
vast majority of the scholars who have considered it in any depth --
a Peircean 'triad' does not, 'exist' (existence, after all is 2ns).
Rather, the Peircean 'triad' is, as you noted, a real relation of
three correlates which cannot be reduced to dyadic relations between
pairs of them. It follows that semiosis cannot be reduced to a
purported "functional" triad, while talk of input - output, expresses
only dynamical action (2ns).
Indeed, the language of "function' and 'interaction' and
'operation' all refer to dyadic 'actions' (i.e., interactions) but
not the triadic character essential in genuine semiosis. This is not,
however, to suggest that a functional approach doesn't have potential
value in certain applications, but that it is essentially not
Peircean even as it uses the language of Peirce's phenomenology and
semeiotic.
Again, as both you, Jon, and Gary f recently noted, all three
categories are always present in every phenomenon; and there are no
"pure modes" of any of the three categories (vs. Edwina writing of a
"pure mode of 1ns"). Of course, one or two of the categories may
predominate in any given observation of a phenomenon; but all three
are 'always-already' present in each and every present phenomenon.
As I see it, certain 2ns and 1ns may be prescinded from 3ns, and 1ns
from 2ns, but this can only be for the purpose of some particular
analysis, some abstraction from a given phenomenological appearance
for a specific conceptual purpose, say of directing attention to or
emphasizing some aspect or character of a manifestation of one of the
three categories in its phenomenological appearance).
The above ideas are, I believe, well-supported views and, as you
put it, Jon, many of these views reach "well-established consensus
among Peirce scholars" and are hardly personal opinions of those who
point to them on the List.
Best,
Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 8:30 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <
[email protected] [1]> wrote:
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
[2]). 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 Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 6:54 AM Edwina Taborsky 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] [6] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
[email protected] [7] 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 [8] .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary
Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
https://www.academia.edu/41574474/The_podium_of_the_universal_categories_of_C_S_Peirce
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[5]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[6]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[7]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[8] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
