BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
I will continue to disagree with JAS's reduction of 'mediation' to
refer only to a process that is operative only within the categorical
mode of 3ns. [by the way - is he aware of the three types of 3ns?] -
and I don't consider that the ten classes, which do include a
mediative relation denies my point that, importantly, four of the ten
classes of signs do not operate within the habit-formation actions of
3ns. They do include the mediative process within their triads but -
without any action of habit-formation or law. My analysis that this
is a very important semiosic function in the universe, i.e., semiosic
interactions without habit-formation - has been ignored. But I
continue to focus on this - it is an action that reduces risk in the
universe and enables the exploration of constructive adaptation.
I note that JAS does not explain the reason why these four classes
do not include 3ns and does not include what other processes 'mind'
carries out in addition to habit-formation. And - does mind drop this
action of habit-formation?
And the descriptions I gave of the two types - are those of Peirce.
I don't expect any agreement, ever, from JAS on my work - and, my
only suggestion is, apart from suggesting that he simply delete my
posts - but that, if he chooses to comment, to insert the words "In
my view'...i.e., this will show that his rejection of my views is HIS
VIEW. That is - rather than setting oneself up as the Official
Gatekeeper of the Truth of Peirce ...an example is his comment of
"and anyone who says otherwise is disagreeing with Peirce". Just
say: 'IN MY VIEW, that " anyone who says otherwise is disagreeing
with Peirce." I've asked for this previously on this list - and have
been ignored of course.
It's called the 'charitable' rather than 'gatekeeper' approach. It
acknowledges that others - who have a different analysis - are not
the 'dregs of society' but ...have a different analysis. Period. But
again - I've asked for such an approach before and been ignored.
Edwina
On Sun 28/03/21 9:47 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Terry, Edwina, List:
ET: Take a look at the ten classes [2.227] and you will see that in
four of these ten, that's 40%, 'Mind' or 3ns, is not operative.
This indicates a serious misunderstanding of Peirce's speculative
grammar. For one thing, the three trichotomies that generate the ten
sign classes are not divisions into his three categories, but rather
divisions into the three universes of possibles, existents, and
necessitants (EP 2:478-490, 1908). For another, the fact that four of
the ten classes do not include any necessitants does not entail that
"'Mind' or 3ns, is not operative." On the contrary, 3ns is always
"operative" in semiosis as the process by which signs mediate between
their objects and their interpretants. According to Peirce, "the
purest conceptions" of 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns are "quality, reaction, and
mediation," respectively (CP 1.530, 1903). In other words, all
mediation is 3ns, and anyone who says otherwise is disagreeing with
Peirce.
ET: Mind is understood as the capacity to form habits, ie, normal
patterns which constrain both form and behaviour.
That is only one aspect of Peirce's understanding of "mind," and
there is much more to it than that. Likewise, the subsequent
descriptions below of "a rhematic iconic qualisign," "a rhematic
iconic sinsign," and "a rhematic indexical sinsign" bear little to no
resemblance to Peirce's own explanations and examples. Energy,
entropy, dissipation, etc. are all terms from the special (physical)
sciences rather than the normative science of logic as semeiotic.
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, USAStructural Engineer, Synechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sat, Mar 27, 2021 at 9:23 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Terry, list
On another issue, I don't agree that 'mind' is present in all
semiosic processes.
Take a look at the ten classes [2.227] and you will see that in four
of these ten, that's 40%, 'Mind' or 3ns, is not operative. That's
actually a very large percentage!
Mind is understood as the capacity to form habits, ie, normal
patterns which constrain both form and behaviour.
But these four do not operate within habits - and frankly, that's a
powerful tool in the universe.
After all, a triad of 1-1-1, ie, a rhematic iconic qualisign, an
'instance' of energy, so to speak, is what enables entropy or the
dissipation of energy - and all systems require both
stability/storage AND dissipation. AND, this random, chance-driven,
totally unrelated 'bit' of energy enables also the introduction of
the entirely novel and new...[if the surrounding system and MIND
accepts and picks it up].
Same with 1-1-2, a rhematic iconic sinsign, which is a more
'material' or morphological existence than the iconic qualisign. Will
it last or is it just 'of the moment' - enabling diversity and random
exploration.
Same with the other two classes; the 1-2-2 or a rhematic indexical
sinsign...which is more physically connected than the other two, is
stronger in its identity...but..is this a random 'try' and will not
be transformed into a continuous mode..by the action of Mind or 3ns?
That is - my point is that the complex adaptive system that is the
semiosic universe has various methods of introducing novelty, and of
safely and without wide risk, of testing their function...before
setting them up as continuous habit-driven morphologies. If a
morphology doesn't work in one area - it can be abandoned without
risk...whereas it is very difficult, as we know, to get rid of
'continuous forms' - such as myths, misinformation and weeds.
Edwina
On Sat 27/03/21 6:42 PM , Terry L Rankin [email protected]
[4] sent:
Edwina (thanks again) & List:
It’s a bit of a struggle for me to suppose the entropic effect of
thermodynamics is open to mitigation, suspension, revocation, or
elimination … but for the Earth’s sake I hope you’re right,
Edwina!
I take some comfort knowing it’s extremely unlikely that I’ll be
around to find out, either way.
Terry
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 6:25 PM
To: [email protected] [5]; [email protected] [6]
Cc: [email protected] [7]
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] phaneroscopy, semiotics and meditation.
Terry, list
Entropy is a concern in a closed system, where the laws of the
system, if any, decay such that they cannot continue to provide
continuity of type and individual instances become unable to interact
such that there is no predictability or even capacity of
interactions. The system is 'at equilibrium' where nothing can
interact with anything. Pure chaos.
In an open system, which is what a CAS is, this is not a problem. My
view of the nature of the universe and all its subsystems as operating
as complex adaptive systems - is that these prevent entropy, for they
are 'far-from-equilibrium'. This means that they are operating
within laws of organization [3ns], that ensure continuity of type and
thus, predictability of interactions...but operating also within 1ns,
which is deviation from the norm. This deviation ensures diversity of
type and thus, the formation of new habits/laws [as the old ones
weaken] to further strengthen the universe's capacity to reject the
force and tendency towards equilibrium [yes, rejecting old laws]
...and the tendency to disable the capacity for relations..ie
entropy.
I think it is interesting that laws do not last forever, so to
speak, but decay in themselves, and the system requires new modes of
organization - both material and conceptual. So- we aren't, in a way,
evolving towards some 'perfect society' or 'perfect environment'. We
are always changing...The only constant seems to be an increase in
diversity and a rejection of homogeneity.
Edwina
On Sat 27/03/21 4:56 PM , Terry L Rankin [email protected]
sent:
Edwina, Helmut, List:
Are the causal laws of the universe ‘adaptive’ -- i.e., no doubt
creative by virtue of their efficacy per se -- but such that entropy
is not inherent in the ‘ex nihilo nihilo’ cosmology of Big Bang
>>> Big Crunch thermodynamic physics? I get that the strength of
those laws is always manifest in probabilistic (frequency of outcomes
less than 1 or not universal, inevitable) as well as cosmically
universal (in the sense of not admitting exception) strength, but is
that sufficient to suppose that thermodynamic entropy can be somehow
defeated or overcome – are those causal laws defeasible as well as
probabilistic? Does the ‘openness’ of CAS/CASC system science
necessarily uphold this defeasibility of causal laws?
Terry
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[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]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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.
