Jon A.S., I truly admire your patience in responding to these things, even when
you know that your responses will be mischaracterized, and the same questions
will be put to you again no matter how many times you answer them. I certainly
don’t have the patience to show Edwina that she’s not “being compared to
Trump,” but has misread my post (as well as yours), and is using the misreading
to vent her own hostility. I wish we could just get back to phaneroscopy. Or
even to Existential Graphs!
Gary f.
} {
<https://gnusystems.ca/wp/> https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
From: [email protected]
<[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 31-Mar-21 13:17
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Semiotics, was : RE: Phaneroscopy, Iconoscopy, and
Peircean Category Theory
Edwina, List:
ET: What I find incredible is the depth of the hostility to my words.
Substantive criticism is not an expression of hostility.
ET: Again, what stuns me is the depth of the anger and vitriol.
Substantive criticism is not an expression of anger and vitriol.
ET: JAS insisted that all mediation is 3ns.
Peirce insisted that all mediation is 3ns.
ET: ... and asked JAS how four of the ten classes, which examine the semiosic
triad, have mediation in a mode other than 3ns.
This is now the third time that this question has been brought up. I directly
answered it the first time, then linked to that same answer the second time,
but I will try again. According to Peirce, there is no such thing as "mediation
in a mode other than 3ns"; again, all mediation is 3ns by definition. The three
trichotomies that result in the ten sign classes are not divisions by category
per se, nor by "mode," but by universe--possible, existent, or necessitant.
They are according to (1) the mode of apprehension of the sign itself, (2) the
relation of the sign to its dynamical object, and (3) the relation of the sign
to its final interpretant. For six of the ten classes, at least one of these is
a necessitant; for the other four, all three are either possibles or existents.
Nevertheless, for all ten classes, the sign always mediates between its
dynamical object and its final interpretant, and thus paradigmatically
manifests 3ns.
ET: ... the quote doesn’t deny the validity of the other quotes about mind and
matter. The fact that Peirce was examining the limited beliefs of a
necessitarian outlook doesn’t negate that particular belief.
I see that there is still no admission, let alone retraction, of misquoting
Peirce in a way that gave the misleading impression that he was endorsing a
particular view, when in fact he was explicitly repudiating it.
ET: And the endless insistence by JAS that one may not use terms, such as
existence, except within one meaning or terms such as input or function...that
too is unreal.
Instead, there is another mischaracterization of my posts.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt>
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt>
On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 8:26 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
What I find incredible is the depth of the hostility to my words. Gary F uses
an analogy with Trump (whom he obviously loathes, ) using such terms as liar,
deliberate disinformation etc.. when if you will read my post, the quotes about
mind do not contradict each other, ie, all show mind is operative in matter.
The 6.61 necessitarian quote refers in addition to someone who ignores the
roles of 1ns and 2ns.
Again, what stuns me is the depth of the anger and vitriol. I am not a liar, I
am not deliberately misinforming or disinforming.
This flare up began when Gary F asserted that I ignored the conceptual semiosis
and focused only on the physical world ...and JAS insisted that all mediation
is 3ns. My reaction, showing that I DO refer to the semiosis of the conceptual
realm (I usually don’t refer to my publications but there are two books of mine
that deal with such areas)..and asked JAS how four of the ten classes, which
examine the semiosic triad, have mediation in a mode other than 3ns.
Then suddenly I am accused of the most heinous of crimes, of deliberately lying
and misinforming ..when there is no evidence of such, when the quote doesn’t
deny the validity of the other quotes about mind and matter. The fact that
Peirce was examining the limited beliefs of a necessitarian outlook doesn’t
negate that particular belief.
And the endless insistence by JAS that one may not use terms , such as
existence, except within one meaning or terms such as input or function...that
too is unreal.
Why bother to stay on the list? Only because there are a few who are incredible
such as Robert Marty. Otherwise it would be neurotic of me to stay when I am
met with such constant hostility.
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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
