Edwina, Gary R., List; ET: ... it is not the case that the majority of Peircean scholars consider that the triad has no existential reality.
That is not the statement that Gary R. actually quoted and disputed. Here it is, along with my response to it that he paraphrased and with which he agreed. 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. JAS: 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. No one is disputing that *signs *can be existents, namely, sinsigns/tokens. However, the term "triad" refers to the irreducible *relation *between a sign, its object, and its interpretant--not the sign *itself*. ET: 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. It is not a straw man to point out how someone else's "meaning of an existential reality" is *different from Peirce's*, since he carefully distinguishes *existence *as reacting with other like things in the environment from *reality *as being such as it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it. Existence corresponds to genuine 2ns, while reality corresponds to genuine 3ns. Accordingly, everything that exists is real, while there are realities that do not exist. ET: 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. As far as I know, Peirce *never *uses the language of "data," "input," "output," and "function" when discussing semiosis. That makes it highly problematic to impose such vocabulary and then insist that it is still somehow consistent with Peirce's actual insights, especially since he wrote extensively about the ethics of terminology and strongly advocated maintaining the words and definitions established by the originator of a scientific concept--in this case, Peirce himself. ET: I disagree that all three categorical modes are operative in every semiosic action. Again, consider the ten classes ... Gary R. did not say this, either. Here is what he actually said. GR: ... 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. He was talking about Peirce's *phenomenological categories*, not "categorical modes," whatever those might be. He said that they are "present in every phenomenon," which is exactly what Peirce himself consistently maintained. He was not talking about the classification of signs *at all*, which is only one particular manifestation of Peirce's categories within speculative grammar as the first branch of the normative science of logic as semeiotic. Again, someone who refuses to be scrupulously faithful to Peirce's own concepts and terminology will be off the mark when attempting to apply them in other domains. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 7:46 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 Thinking > Communication Studies > LaGuardia College of the City University of New York > >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
