Charles Sanders Peirce (1839 - 1914) is one of the most prominent of American philosophers. One of the areas he developed was the concept of Semiotics, the study of Signs. (a page describing his terms in his words)
Peirce came up with a three-tiered model that was supposed to reflect, and to some degree does reflect, the categorisation and development of fundamental signs and from these 'basics' were derived composites.
In his Semiotics Pierce started by forming a triadic concept of sign, object, interpretant. However, as he developed the model so entanglements of dichotomisations/trichotomisations took hold where there were now TWO types of objects, THREE types of interpretants etc etc. The bifurcation concept presented at this site can help to flesh out these distinctions (and so 'anomolies'), showing that our development of ideas follows complexity processes which include 'emergences'. Peirce (and Freud, see later) got it almost right but seen in the context of their times, they were way ahead of those times.
Peirce's three-tiered model for signs covers the process of deriving signs from sensory experiences as well as signs. The fundamental concepts required to understand this process are those of 'firstness', 'secondness', 'thirdness' combined with a concept of transformation and so a hierarchic process that moves one from the concrete to the abstract. The following descriptions of these concepts are based on Peirce's analysis together with my own reflections based on what we have discovered in recent times about neurological/psychological processes. In this case I may be guilty of re-defining firstness, secondness, thirdness, but I do believe that these states do reflect what Peirce was trying to describe at a time when there was little information on how 'in here' actually works.
Firstness is a state where we identify something 'totally'. We are immersed in this something, but still a potential, such as the experience of red, red becomes the context in which we swim and yet the intensity of the experience is such that we are also red and so there is not even the distinction of text from context, all is 'one' but this 'one' is a particular, not a general even though the experience can be so total that we generalise the experience to 'everywhere/everywhen'. Firstness is thus a highly intense, self-contained experience with no consideration of context outside of the experience. As we shall see on another page, this is very similar to Freud's concept of the ID where we deal with total, absolute, self-involvement. From the template perspective the same brain processes in Peirce and Freud have led to the same general conclusions.
Over time the immersion of firstness gives way to reflection based on other immersions, using the colour concept, so one's immersion in yellow or blue, leads one to start to compare the different states finding common properties. Added to this, we also start comparing these specific sensory experiences to other sensory experiences and so making analogies. At this level there is still a bias to totality and so analysis is still more object oriented (wholes and parts where parts are wholes in a relationship with a 'greater' whole.). This state is called Secondness. This is the first step of considering external context, of considering feedback processes to bring-out aspects. This process is the first level of explicit objectification in that we are no longer immersed in the whole, we have taken the experiencing and given that something a life of its own such that we can be outside of it. This can be an alienating experience depending on whether the firstness experience was negative or positive. This concept of secondness is similar to Freud's concept of the EGO where a degree of ordering takes place, a degree of management emerges to handle the 'in here'/'out there' interactions.
Over time this making of distinctions between 'this' and 'that' is completed to a degree where we start to consider the forces 'behind' and 'in-between' 'wholes' and 'parts', the 'this from that' process only identifies borders, and the process it is still very 'point' oriented, the emphasis still lies on object-to-object. At this new level we see the space in-between and 'behind' the objects. With this process, called Thirdness, we shift from analysis of wholes and parts to the analysis of contextual influences on these wholes and parts; we start to study the static and dynamic relationships outside of an object that goes to determining the expression of that object in any given moment.
For Peirce, thirdness emphasises the analysis/consideration of rules and regulations, of laws. At this level so the context is deemed to be of more 'value' than the text, it is what is BEHIND things that is important. Compared to thirdness, firstness manifests total expression, thirdness the rules and regulations included in that expression. Secondness manifests the initial change from considering 'thing' to what is behind 'thing'. In this context, after the initial determination of 1-2-3, 1 and 3 can share the same space in that firstness is thirdness with a label and so perceptually more 'concentrated'.
Given all of the above I have been able to 'flesh put' Peirce's concept of Thirdness to identify it as an oscillating position between the concepts of REPRESENTATION and MEDIATION.
(Some of the following originally posted to the PEIRCE-L discussion list in 2001):
Working backwards from the continuum to A/~A, the continuum, ANY continuum, is representative to what we call
the number line. IOW in the spectra of light the background continuum of colours reflects an ordering of harmonics
of the whole (aka white light). This is reflected in the number line etc.
In mathematics there is the concept of the Dedekind Cut. This cut separates the real numbers at a point P into
two sections, call them LEFT and RIGHT IOW the cut forms a dichotomy.
-------+-------
LEFT P RIGHT
In this cut, applied to the number line or to a spectrum 'line', we find that:
(1) LEFT and RIGHT are not 'empty'.
(2) If a number/colour belongs to LEFT then so does every smaller/lower number/colour (where colour is measured
as a frequency).
(3) If a number/colour belongs to RIGHT then so does every larger number/colour.
(4) Every number/colour belongs to exactly one of the two sections.
(5) RIGHT and LEFT are not mirror images. If we use a general form of a spectrum as applicable to the Doppler effect,
one side is BLUE and the other RED.
(6) When we 'cut' the continuum at point 'P' we must either include P in one part of the division or include it
in the other half. (division being exclusive). The consequences of which are that one half of the division will
have an end-point and the other will be open (no end point).
The emphasis from dichotomisation in general is that one 'side' is closed and so a sense of 'whole', of an object-ness,
whereas the other side is 'open' and so a sense of the infinite which we can correlate with the concept of relationships.
The continuum perspective, favoured by Peirce, was that the 'cut' reflects a bifurcation in that if we perform
the cut and then move the two sides 'apart' so we cleave a space. In this process we label the lines thus:
------+-------
A P B
------ ------
A B C D
IOW B and C BOTH represent P. What this points to (!) is that Dedekind was focused on the horizontal whereas Peirce
recognised the value of introducing the vertical (The bifurcation process and so the root of trees, branching,
etc etc he realised that diagramatically we use these concepts to 'map' a single space.)
Notice that the Dedekind perspective forces a finite/infinite emphasis (1:many) whereas Peirce's perspective allows
for mirroring and so 1:1. These two distinctions reflect Chomsky's hierarchy in grammar where the Dedekind perspective
reflects the rigid order of a Regular grammar whereas Peirce has moved 'up' the hierarchy into reflection (mirroring,
palindrome).
Peirce then went further by reflecting on the next level of Chomsky's hierarchy - repeation. In this concept, rather
than take the line interval and 'bifurcate' it, we take the righthand endpoint of the line interval and extend
it more to the right; IOW we 'repeat' it. For Peirce this 'extention' reflected the bifurcation working 'laterally'
where one point becomes two. (IOW Peirce is working with the 'point' as something real, geometric, rather than
as a property of the line).
Overall, the manner in which we as a species go about categorising within a specific context or 'box' is to
create a set, an ordered set, of basic categorisations. At the general level we can create the distinctions of
A and NOT A as the basic categories.
However, experiences shows us that these do not serve their purpose too well in that they are too 'rigid', too
ALL, and as such in logic reflect the use of the universal quantifier.
How do we resolve this problem without stepping out of the box? It is simply done by taking the sequence A, ~A
and applying it to itself orthogonally ('vertically').
In other words we have:
(1) AA [pure A = ALL A]
(2) A~A [A and ~A = Some A]
(3) ~AA [~A and A = Some ~A]
(4) ~A~A [pure ~A = ALL ~A]
The first character is the original dimension (horizontal emphasis) and the second character reflects the orthogonal
dimension where we have used the orthogonal dimension to add qualitative distinctions to the original 'general'
categorisations; we give the A and ~A some 'colour'.
Note how (a) we maintain the universal quantifier ("for ALL X..") and (b) introduce the existential quantifier
("there is at least one X such that...." aka SOME)
This set of four can now interpreted 'horizontally', as a set of four ordered categories, and in turn, again due
to the experienced lack in precision of the categories, be recruited by being applyed orthogonally to itself. This
can go on ad-infinitum (or until you run out of resolution and so can no longer identify differences)
Reflecting on this general recruitment process and so the horizontal/vertical oscillations one comes to an interesting
insight on Peirce's trichotomy concepts in that I have often stated that I thought in his thirdness there are fours
not threes and that he had not differentiated relational processes into the distinctions of statics and dynamics.
The recruitment concepts outlined above seem to validate my doubts in that Peirce has identified his categories
of firstness, secondness, thirdness and writes of their qualities as:
"Quality, Reaction, Representation OR Mediation."
Lets focus on the firstness-secondness relationship. This relationship can be generally identified as one of stimulus/response.
In that, from Peirce's association of Phenomenology to firstness, we see reflected in the category the sense of
IS-ness, quality of BEING but without further qualifications and so a sense of potentials. IOW any stimulus is
a potential.
Secondness, associated by Peirce to reaction, reflects the Normatives of aesthetics, ethics, and logic. IOW an
emphasis on particularising, validating, of actualising the potential.
From neurocognitive research firstness-secondness 'fit' the stimulus/response distinctions. But analysis on the
manner in which we go about categorising a pattern suggests Peirce 'missed' clearly defining thirdness, or more
so its dynamics and so more of an emphasis on fours rather than threes. (In the realm of the neurocognitive, thirdness
reflects the activity of feedback that acts to mediate between stimulus/response, to refine the responses and create
'good' habits)
With the above categorisation methodology in mind, of asserting categories and then applying them to themselves
(recursion), a method I suggest is a fundamental in how we categorise as a species, lets review Peirce's thirdness.
Firstly, note in his description for thirdness he stated it as "Representation OR Mediation". What is
noticable about these terms is that the term "Representation" has a 'static' aire about it when compared
to the more dynamic emphasis in the term "Mediation"; the latter is more 'doing', the former more 'being'.
Going back to the distinctions of firstness and secondness we note that firstness too has a more 'static' aire
when compared to the characteristics of secondness (reaction).
Thus we can write in a horizontal format:
static - dynamic
and, recognising these distinctions do not cover all, recruit these distinctions and apply them to themselves orthogonally
giving:
static+static [firstness - quality]
static+dynamic [thirdness - representation]
dynamic+static [secondness - reaction]
dynamic+dynamic [thirdness - mediation]
In this context thirdness is derived from the initial concepts of firstness-secondness but Peirce combined the
thirdness PAIR into one concept. He reflects the combination, and the dynamic of thirdness, when he identifies
it as "Representation OR Mediation" in that this reflects the SAME dynamic in firstness-secondness but
seemingly allowing for 'reverse' in that the act of mediation leads to the establishment of a representation (aka
a HABIT or SYMBOL). Usually the dynamic is a REACTION (secondness) to a static (firstness) but the refinement process
turns this around where the dynamic (mediation) leads to a static (representation), the static is a 'reaction'.
Note however that there is also the implication of maintaining the static to dynamic path where representation
can lead to mediation. This latter state reflects habits requiring 'refinement' but at the same time reflecting
the *initial* state of thirdness as only 'mediation' - then follows the build-up of representations that in turn
can 'demand' mediation etc.
What is implied here is that all assertions of 'thirdness' contain TWO elements, a static and a dynamic, but there
is no rigidly fixed 'direction', other than the initial mediation, since the strong dynamics emphasis allows for
feedback processes to cause 'loops' in development; there is an increase in flexibility (as the use of the orthogonal
enables).
Note that this flexibility allows for 'constellation' formations in that representations (which we can call firstness
in thirdness) and mediations (secondness in thirdness) can form first-second relationships that are themselves
recruited within 'thirdness' etc etc BUT the flexibility in the original 'thirdness' increases the prospect of
the perception of what we can call 'triadic' relationships 'free' of sequence. (All of this is possible if you
want to stay in the 'trichotomy' box and interpret thirdness as refinement of BOTH first(static)&second(dynamic)
rather than shift perspective to fours etc)
To get back to the basic categorisations, if we symbolise the main elements of the categories as 's' - static,
'd' - dynamic we have (Note here the second character in each pair comes from the orthogonal dimension to the dimension
of the first character of each pair.):
ss - firstness
sd - thirdness
ds - secondness
dd - thirdness
To reorder them to emphasise the first-second-third/fourth orderings:
ss-ds+dd-sd (static-dynamic-dynamic-static)
What is noticable here is the reflection (I have identified the reflection point with "+") where
firstness (quality) 'reflects' fourthness (representation as habit/symbol) as secondess (reaction) reflects thirdness
(mediation). The secondness/thirdness relationship is that of 'mindless' action to 'mindful' action.
Also of note is in the firstness-fourthness pair where the iconic expression in firstness lacks dynamics (ss) whereas
in fourthness, the actual symbol, we see an element of dynamics in interpretation (sd). This reflects the development
path from icon-to-symbol.
We can then take these as a sequence of categories and apply them to themselves:
Algebraically, ss,sd,ds,dd becomes:
ssss
sssd
ssds
ssdd
sdss
sdsd
sdds
sddd
dsss
dssd
dsds
dsdd
ddss
ddsd
ddds
dddd
Again we can recruit this 'sequence' and apply it to itself orthogonally and so on. However, we also note that
in the context of firstness-to-secondness, etc there are elements of these categorisations that may be 'prohibited'
(as we find with such concepts as thirdness OF firstness etc) or more so confined to being sequences WITHIN a context
set by a prohibited sequence. I have not fleshed these out here).
This method of creating a base set of categories, applying the set to itself orthogonally and using the result
as a base set of categories and so on and on 'fits' more the research on our species' neurocognitive/affective
processes where the oscillation between horizontal and vertical reflects the methodology we use to create precise
maps of 'out there' as well as 'in here'; maps which keep us 'in the box'.
The success of Peirce's work reflects how close he comes to mapping 'in here' at work but the manner in which his
list of signs eventually seemed to 'wander-off' reflects a lack in precision due to the entanglement in thirdness
by not recognising the horizontal/vertical methodology we seem to use as a species. This reflects the consequences
of not getting the initial conditions 'spot on' to start with; complexity/chaos at work.
Some further comments on thirdness - I make the distinction between 19th century thirdness stemming from attempts
to fully understand the mind of Peirce within the time of Peirce, and so a more philosophical perspective, and
21st century thirdness stemming from a Semiotics perspective as in the value of, the usefulness of, the thirdness
concept today. My comments are in the context of the latter distinction.
I think we can agree that we recognise in humans the dichotomy of transcendence/transformation. Transformation
reflects the changing of a facade without necessarily the changing of the core self. Transcendence means a change
in the core self.
The nature of thirdness is that of mediation/representation, an oscillation 'across' these distinctions. Thirdness
reflects a mindfulness emerging out the mindlessness of stimulus/response with a focus on the area symbolised by
the '/' - the space inbetween the stimulus/response. This is relational space. (Thirdness seems to be more a categorical
'error' in that the distinctions of static relationships and dynamic relationships were orginally packed into the
same category space rather then being given spaces of their own - and so fourthness ;-))
The dichotomy of stimulus/response is the manifestation of the dynamic in the general A/~A distinction where a
static format would be something like +1/-1
The concept of thirdness emerges from reflection upon the '/' in any dichotomy, IOW reflection on relational space
where we identify those elements that 'tie' A and ~A; the space in-between the 'dots' of A and ~A.
The process of creating a representation of the A/~A process requires we capture the essence of A, the essence
of ~A as well as the essence of the particular interactions occuring between these essences.
This process of representation requires the compaction of A and ~A into the same space as part of the representation
process such that in the single symbol we can 'see' all of the A, ~A, and the particular relationship involved.
In the neurology of the species, habits/intuitions/instinct 'memories' are encoded in the spines of the dendrites,
the input area, of the neuron and as such act as a filtering system. This area allows for spine modifications and
so the re-configuration of habits. This process allows for habit changes given a specific context, be it the emergence
of puberty or a change in context as in seasons etc. This filter mechanism identifies *transformations* where an
individual can change facade, and so social influence, without change in core sense of self.
From a thirdness perspective, mediation (either conscious or in the form of genes or hormones) can act to change
the filters and so change the appearence of the individual (or abstract concept) without changing core systems.
This emphasis is on representation stemming from transformation.
Another area of influence on the neuron is on the synchronisation connections to the neuron's cell body. These
connections are 'after' the dendrites and act to synchronise a network of neurons to sum their data to create an
image etc. Thus a dendrite pattern within one neuron is tied to that of others through control of the neurons firing
through inhibit/excite connections.
'Anomolies' in the timings can cause distortions in the patterns as well as confuse pattern orderings. In other
words there is a shift in the pattern expression that can elicit the experience of a trancendence - a 'new' vision.
This process reflects the concept of transcendence. (it also shows the link between creativity and schizophrenia
etc etc)
The result of the trancendence can, through feedback links, become encoded as a new 'habit' in the dendrites and
so become part of the everyday 'transformation' processes. This can then 'leak' into the context, the realm of
the collective and can influence changes in that collective.
The intensity of the 'enlightenment' can mean that the symbolisation, the representation, is total and so an icon
is created, which over time, will 'age' to become a symbol. On the other hand, variations in the totality of the
experiences means the creation of representations as indices or symbols or 'complex' forms of.
The associated sense of MEANING that is identified is a sense that comes out of the METHOD used to derive the feeling.
Since that method involves the mediation between A and ~A so you are dealing with a dynamic system, with a focus
on a DIALECTIC mechanism where the past is considered as the context for the present.
This method of deriving meaning has all possible meanings already present as a set of potentials. We take this
set and link it to a context and an associated lexicon to emphasise the DIFFERENCE we are trying to identify within
the set of meanings we share as members of the same species - a set of meanings that reflect SAMENESS (as in the
sense of wholeness for all members of the species will be, in general, identical. The context+lexicon helps to
map this sameness to a context and so be useful to describe a difference).
WIth the above set of observations we can identify thirdness as an expression of mindless stimulus/response tied
to mindfulness . The influence is the space inbetween the stimulus/response - the relational space where in the
process of making distinctions we have in fact recruited the original distinctions of stimulus/response (or in
general the notion of A/~A) and applied the orthogonally (symbolised in taking "-" and "|"
to form "+"). We also recognise that not only is thirdness a place of transformation but also a place
of trancendence.
From the neurocognitive/affective context there is no need for any 'divine' role here, but that does not remove
the possiblity ;-) In pur species the mediation/representation position is rooted in the genes where feedback leads
to the extention by allowing for firmware - hormonal modifications of behaviours - and the emergence of mind as
a further refinement.
The METHOD of mediation, the oscillations across A/~A and the summing of distinctions to give a 'whole' meaning,
determines the meaning - meaning is already defined as a set of potentials rooted in the method.
As previously demonstrated, buy identifying an 'error' in categorisation of thirdness we can map-out the categories
to a self-referencing system used by the brain to derive meaning and so in turn the rich set of meanings within
the I Ching, the Book of Changes based on the distinctions of a 'Whole' (T'ai
Chi) which we analyse using yin/yang distinctions. We can also map-in the MBTI categories, the MBTI being a well-used
typology system, and so identify persona types that reflect a particular Peircean category.
The recognition of an 'error' in categorisation comes with the realisation that any category whoes nature is 'uncertain'
reflects either a failure to differentiate clearly OR a 'best fit' being imposed by the human Brain which, when
presented with a 'paradox', will oscillate across the elements of that paradox, attempting
to assert A OR NOT A.
In Peirce's categories this 'uncertainty' is in the form of oscillations in identifying thirdness as EITHER mediation
OR representation. When we recognise this oscillation so the categories map-out to a fuller system, based on recursive
dichotomisations which thus reflect self-reference at work.
(Note that the oscillation can also reflect a notion of 'irreducability' of some concepts. This can be 'true' if
what is detected is outside of the ability of our senses to differentiate but that is testable in that as we extend
our set of categories so we STILL come across oscillations. Since in the template work of mine I focus on octets
there is less chance of 'oscillations' in categories but we recognise that oscillations fall within the realm of
dynamic relationships as a 'natural' process.)
There is no 'problem' with retaining trichotomies as a source of meaning other than recognising that doing so requires
the recognition of the category oscillations in thirdness and that if this is NOT recognised then extention of
the system will eventually lead one into 'ga-ga' land, as Peirce found with his creation of sign categorisations.
From my work on identifying Brain functions and how we as a species derive meaning I have identified a set of basic
meanings based on recursion of the WHAT/WHERE dichotomy, these distinctions abstracted to the notion of Objects
and Relationships. These meanings are divided into two groups:
Objects. Here the emphasis is on identification of WHOLES and PARTS
Relationships. Here the emphasis is on identification of STATIC relationships and DYNAMIC relationships.
I have been able to identify a set of FEELINGS that correlate with the above meanings:
BLEND - a sense of wholeness
BOUND - a sense of partness, boundaries
BOND - a sense of static relationships
BIND - a sense of dynamic relationships
To refine the distinctions further we define a variable that represents qualifiers to the above definitions. These
qualifiers are in the form of dichotomies such as contract/expand, context/text, negative/positive etc etc In this
particular case I will use the dichotomy of passive/active. This gives us an octet that seems to serve as a the
source of rich meaning.
The general identification of the Peirce categories being reflected in the terms of stimulus, response, mediation,
representation, together with identifying the mediation position as the most dynamic as well as the focus of mediation
and representation as being on the 'middle' of the stimulus/response dichotomy allows for the following mappings:
WHOLE - BLEND - STIMULUS
PARTS - BOUND - RESPONSE
STATICS - BOND - REPRESENTATION
DYNAMICS - BIND - MEDIATION
The notion of a STIMULUS is that of identifying a quality, a pure form. This is a perception without as yet explicit
valuation - there is a sense of 'IS-ness' together with a realm full of potentials.
The notion of a RESPONSE is that of assertion of VALUE to a stimulus. The BOUND emphasis shows the boundary, the
dichotomy we use in the value assertion be the valuation beautiful/ugly, right/wrong, true/false.
The notion of a MEDIATION is that of binding stimulus/response in analysis. Within the realm of secondness, the
particular emphasis of stimulus/response, if the response does not 'fit' the stimulus, or if we need to be more
'precise', so we introduce mediation that serves to make finer distinctions of S/R and so aid in the creation of
a representation that is 'close' to the fact of the relationship.
The notion of a REPRESENTATION is a result of the binding but we call this a BOND, a static relationship of two
or more entities that are combined to REPRESENT both stimulus and response where the representation is in the form
of a SYMBOL (and so serves more as a stimulus) or a HABIT (and so serves more as a response). Note that the SYMBOL
comes with a set of potentials as in what it COULD DO, whereas the HABIT comes as an actual - given a specific
stimulus the habit is elicited.
What this process reflects is the process of mediation/representation acting to 'refine' stimulus/response processes
where once a symbol or habit has been formed we can withdraw to a less energy-sapping state or else move on to
other mediation-requiring situations.
Given the above associations with categories, when we introduce the qualifier of passive/active we have eight basic
categories:
Active Stimulus (A-blend)
Passive Stimulus (P-blend)
Active Response (A-bound)
Passive Response (P-bound)
Active Mediation (A-bind)
Passive Mediation (P-bind)
Active Representation (A-bond)
Passive Representation (P-bond)
My template work identifies a process of self-reference in the brain that when extended to the MIND is reflected
in all sorts of typologies we use to categorise within particular contexts. In particular ANY category system that
uses dichotomies (and I mean the extended form of 1:many, cooperative expressions as well as the 1:1 opposition
expressions).
The I Ching is one of the oldest category systems on the planet - rooted in the mists of ancient China with a focus
on identifying 'all there is' through use of yin/yang distinctions where the yin/yang can be treated as general
variables reflecting specific dichotomies (as in negative/positive or in this case passive/active)
Initally all I will do here is identify (a) a set of eight trigrams, three-line symbols that correlate with the
above octet and then (b) the recruitment of that octet and applying it to itself to give us a rich set of categories
in the form of 64 hexagrams, six-line symbols representing a 'top' trigram and a 'bottom' trigram where the bottom
is here interpreted as the CONTEXT and the top trigram as the TEXT. The combination of these elicit a specific
meaning traditionally given to each hexagram. (c) demonstrate good semantic relationships between Peirce's categories
and the hexagrams giving us a rich source of meanings to 'refine' the categories as well as the I Ching - since
BOTH systems seem to use the SAME underlying template that the brain uses in categorising.
Firstly we need to re-order our list thus:
Active Stimulus (A-blend)
Active Representation (A-bond)
Active Response (A-bound)
Active Mediation (A-bind)
Passive Mediation (P-bind)
Passive Response (P-bound)
Passive Representation (P-bond)
Passive Stimulus (P-blend)
This requirement is due to the fact that the self-referencing method of deriving meanings is in the form of a binary
tree. I outlined this in my last post thus:
Applying the above Peircean categories to the BBBB concepts
(plate.html) we have
(if necessary, use
fixed font to see this table):
blend---------------------------------blend
blend------bound-----------bound------blend
blend-bond-bound-bind-bind-bound-bond-blend
Where the top row is the realm of firstness,
Second row is the realm of secondness,
Third row is the realm of thirdness.
For the sake of argument I will work Active-to-Passive such that the left side of the thirdness row above is active,
the right side passive.
The first 'interesting' list is of the trigrams of the I Ching which come out of row three above - the row of 'thirdness'
associated with the categories:
Heaven - Active Stimulus (A-blend)
Lake - Active Representation (A-bond)
Fire - Active Response (A-bound)
Thunder - Active Mediation (A-bind)
Wind - Passive Mediation (P-bind)
Water - Passive Response (P-bound)
Mountain - Passive Representation (P-bond)
Earth - Passive Stimulus (P-blend)
To see the trigram symbols in the above order see:
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ddiamond/fuhsi.gif
Of these trigrams:
In the I Ching Heaven and Earth reflect PURITY and WHOLENESS and here symbolise the pure 'quality', IS-ness of
firstness/STIMULUS. These trigrams also reflect single-mindedness (total trust in oneself) and dual-mindedness
(total trust in another/others)
In the I Ching Lake and Mountain reflect REFLECTION & DISCERNMENT and as such 'fit' with the notion of REPRESENTATION.
In the I Ching Fire and Water reflect GUIDANCE and CONTROL and as such 'fit' with the notion of RESPONSE in that
these trigrams deal with social/personal assertions of 'true/false', 'good/bad' etc etc.
In the I Ching Thunder and Wind reflect ENLIGHTENMENT ('NEWNESS') and CULTIVATION and as such 'fit' with the notion
of mediation where part of the process is of 'new' perspectives etc emerging. Note that the enlightement/cultivation
emphasis identifies with the notions of Transcendence and Transformation, two concepts strongly rooted in thirdness
(in the REPRESENTATION realm the associations map to the concepts of REFLECTION and DISCERNMENT)
In summary:
In the distinctions derived from reflection upon Peircean categories we have (with some sample hexagrams):
STIMULUS (changeless, eternal, catalysts)
Passive - Earth (as in to be admired [e.g. hex 20], representation within/as stimulus)
Active - Heaven (as to invigorate [e.g. hex 34], mediation within/as stimulus)
REPRESENTATION (and so *reflection*, discern/intensity)
Passive - Mountain (hex 62 - mediation within/as representation)
Active - Lake (hex 61 - representation within/as representation)
RESPONSE (control/guide)
Passive - Water (hex 04 - representation within/as response)
Active - Fire (hex 55 - mediation within/as response)
MEDIATION (changing, transform/transcend)
Passive - Wind (hex 18 representation within/as mediation)
Active - Thunder ( hex 42 mediation within/as mediation)
Once you have these general categories, in the realm of self-reference, you recruit these categories to aid in
'fleshing-out' the general categories and in doing so give us a refined set of categories - 64 of them.
The 64 'hexagrams' are made-up of eight octets where each octet is grounded by a context-setting trigram atop which
we put all of the trigram categories to form a set of eight hexagrams reflecting finer distinctions of the general.
For example, we derive a set of hexagrams all of which have Active Mediation (aka the trigram of THUNDER) as the
context and all of the other trigrams as the text (top trigram). For example THUNDER over THUNDER reflects Active
Mediation DOUBLED - symbolically:
--- ---
--- ---
-------
--- ---
--- ---
-------
There are two trigrams here, one atop the other. The HEXAGRAM meaning deals with enlightenment and awareness, a
sense of surprise, shock, 'newness', eliciting 'in your face' change - all concepts mappable to intense active
mediation.
The passive form is with WIND over WIND:
-------
-------
--- ---
-------
-------
--- ---
This HEXAGRAM means dealing with cultivation and becoming influencial, eliciting change by implications - all concepts
mappagle to passive mediation.
Here is a mapping of the Peirce categories to the first octet of I Ching hexagrams ordered in a rigid structural
sequence. I have put-in links where the meanings will be general but applicable to the Peirce concepts.
These hexagrams reflect variations on the general theme of 'active firstness'. They are biased to human interactions
but can be re-configured in that the texts are particularisations of the underlying GENERAL patterns of meaning.
For example, just as hexagram 01 is PURE YANG the text favours application to persona - as in a leader, singlemindedness
etc BUT this same general notion can be re-written to apply to purity of objects etc for example hexagram 01 is
also linked to the notion of Light.
Active Stimulus + Active Stimulus - http://members.iimetro.com,.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/111111.html
Active Stimulus + Active Representation - http://members.iimetro.com,.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/011111.html
Active Stimulus + Active Response - http://members.iimetro.com,.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/101111.html
Active Stimulus + Active Mediation - http://members.iimetro.com,.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/001111.html
Active Stimulus + Passive Mediation - http://members.iimetro.com,.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/110111.html
Active Stimulus + Passive Response -http://members.iimetro.com,.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/010111.html
Active Stimulus + Passive Representation - http://members.iimetro.com,.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/100111.html
Active Stimulus + Passive Stimulus -http://members.iimetro.com,.au/~lofting/myweb/lofting/000111.html
DO NOT concern yourself with the numberings for now, but if you need to 'know' this is explained in cracked.html
As an example of interpretation - the second hexagram, active stimulus + active representation is interpreted in
the I Ching as spreading the seed, a sense of robustness, of breaking out to spread the word. Since seed/word are
representations of the 'real' thing so we see them here operating WITHIN a context of stimulus. What is
being stated here is that this sort of expression acts to stimulate and elicit responses.
Another example, the third hexagram, active stimulus + active response is interpreted in the I Ching as possessions
on great measure and overall we see a VALUE assessment. It also represents someone of 'power' directing the path
to follow IOW value is in ideas as well as goods.
The mediation example of active stimulus + active mediation is interpreted in the I Ching as Power of the Great,
aka Invigorating, motivating.
I think the above outline of Peirce's categories with the I Ching validates the concept of a template we use instinctively
in our brains. To aid in reflections on this here are the eight basic categories mapped to a set of persona types
that come using the same self-reference method to create a set of persona categorisations here identified as the
MBTI/Keirsey categorisations:
Sensation seekers:
Active Stimulus (A-blend) - Operators [balance seeking] (XSTP)
Active Representation (A-bond) - Players [artists, entertainers] (XSFP)
Problem solvers (solution seekers):
Active Response (A-bound) - Organisers [classifiers, scientists] (XNTJ)
Active Mediation (A-bind) - Engineers [architects/philosopers](XNTP)
Security seekers:
Passive Mediation (P-bind) - Monitors [auditors, umpires] (XSTJ)
Passive Response (P-bound) - Conservators/Protectors [preserve](XSFJ)
Identity seekers:
Passive Representation (P-bond) - Mentors [authors, pedagogues](XNFJ)
Passive Stimulus (P-blend) - Advocates/Disciples (XNFP)
What is noteworthy is that the continue recruitment of categories means we move from 8 to 64 to 4096 to 16 million+
possible categorisations - more than enough to cover our general experiences.
The concept of thirdness is similar to Freud's concept of the SUPEREGO where social rules and regulations are internalised and this forms an active component 'in here' interacting with the ID+EGO elements of the psyche. When looked at from the point of view of the SUPEREGO, the SUPEREGO is the ID+EGO of many up against (or cooperating with) the ID+EGO of one.
In Peirce's sign model, each level in the tier is within a context and this context is in the form of firstness, secondness, thirdness. At the same time the 'text' is also categorised as firstness, secondness, thirdness. Thus the combination of text and context leads to an expression and that expression is labeled.
The labels are (from Peirce's distinctions these cover the nature of signs):
firstness IN a context of firstness -- a QUALISIGN (emphasis is on qualitative, sensory biases, a 'total' experience)
secondness IN a context of firstness -- a SINSIGN
thirdness IN a context of firstness -- a LEGISIGN (Legi as in 'law, legal' etc)
We here change levels with the thirdness IN firstness transformed into a firstness IN secondness. For example, the path from first IN first, second IN first, reflects the process of induction and at the third IN first we have reached a level where we can make a hypothesis. The assertion of that hypothesis shifts us to first IN second where the hypothesis now becomes the context rather than the sensory experiences we used to generate the hypothesis.
Since we are now at a level of secondness, we use analogies as the dominant process, comparisons of 'this' from 'that'. In particular we use the abduction/deduction dichotomy to validate the hypothesis and so add to its value.
Deduction is where we go from the hypothesis (a general) to a prediction of a particular. The result of this works as feedback.
Abduction is where we suddenly notice something (a particular) that makes us recall the hypothesis with this act telling us something about the value of the hypothesis.
The labels for secondness as context are (From Peirce's distinctions these reflect the relationship of sign to its object):
firstness IN secondness -- ICON
secondness IN secondness -- INDICES
thirdness IN secondness -- SYMBOL
Note that in the last label the symbol captures all aspects of the sign and includes the duality emphasis common in secondness, here in that the symbol is a metaphor for 'the thing'. A next step is where the metaphor is taken literally (as if a first) and so symbol becomes object.
At the level of thirdness (relationship of sign to interpretant) as context the labels are:
firstness IN thirdness -- RHEME
secondness IN thirdness -- DICENT
thirdness IN thirdness -- ARGUMENT
The overall emphasis in this last set is of rules and regulations, the expressions of first, second, third in a highly context sensitive way; an example of grammar at work. At this scale of thirdness as context to the 'totalilty' of firstness, its actuality is lost in that it becomes a potential (and so is called a RHEME). The development of this idea comes from the fact that thirdness looks more at the space in-between objects and so at firstness the objects are potentials. The moment you have TWO points so you have a relationship that binds and so an assertion of actuality (DICENT). The final state, ARGUEMENT, covers habit (a property of thirdness in that once you have gone through the 1-2-3 process so we develop habits. Thirdness can manifest the process of integration, secondness manifests differentiation, firstness is the 'raw' original. Once we integrate so things become unconscious and a stimulus generates a response. Note that after the initial 1-2-3 an integrated form can become a 'raw' original for a different scale of analysis).
We can see from these categorisations an emphasis by Peirce on trichotomies but my analysis of the neurology/psychology behind our methods of categorisation suggests that dichotomies 'rule' and that the trichotomy-based categorisation systems are in fact the result of a lack in refined analysis. This lack in refinement is in the form of the THIRD element of the trichotomy in that this element has been labeled 'relationships' and so does not make the necessary distinction between static relationships and dynamic relationships.
Overall, whenever we make these seemingly triadic distinctions so we see a bifurcation process taking place:
1 - firstness (whole)
2 - firstness + secondess (whole + part)
3 - thirdness (static + dynamic + whole + part)
At first this 'error' will seem 'little' however if you develop anything based on this simple error, as you become more detailed so you can start to go off the rails, as Peirce did with his development of the number of possible signs.
My main concern here is to show the influence of the what/where dichotomy on our categorisation
processes and our development of maps of 'reality'. Peirce's concepts of first, second, third, reflects levels
of bifurcations applied to the what/where dichotomy where at the third level we have a set of states that can be
used to encapsulate a concept and as such get labeled and become a 'first' of a new level for analysis. This is
seen in the template discussed at this site where each row represents an analytical refinement
of the first row. When we get to the third row we find a set of states that can be combined with each other to
create 'new' states. The template model has been created by applying the what/where recursively and I believe that
the coincidence of being able to map Peirce, Freud etc is more than that in that we are seeing neurology at work
and from that a sense of meaning that we all share as a species but that can be particularised to personal and
cultural differences.
