06/5/25

A Brief Overview of What Razie Mah offers Biosemioticians in 2025 (Part 1 of 3)

1272 Biosemiotics challenges the current scientific vision of human evolution (as of 2025).

Okay, maybe I should correct that.

Razie Mah presents a challenge. Biosemioticians can board the academic siege-apparatus at their leisure.

Leisure?

In 2010, in the book, Semiotic Animal, John Deely describes the owl of Minerva taking wing in the twilight of the modern Age of Ideas. He, Thomas Sebeok and (no doubt) biosemiotician Alexei Sharov, know that the Third Age of Understanding comes to a close.

1273 In October 2023, Razie Mah blogs a review, titled Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010), “Semiotic Animal”. This examination contains the scholastic interscope for how humans think. The initial version of this interscope is developed in Razie Mah’s e-book, Comments on John Deely’s Book (1994) New Beginnings. The interventional sign-relation comes into view in Comments on Sasha Newell’s Article (2019) “The Affectiveness of Symbols”.

1274 Then, starting in July and running through October 2024, Razie Mah offers a series of examinations in his blog, including Looking at Steve Fuller’s Book (2020) “A Player’s Guide to the Post-Truth Condition”; Joesph Pieper’s book (1974) “Abuse of Language: Abuse of Power”; Vivek Ramaswamy’s book (2021), “Woke, Inc.”; Michelle Stile’s book (2022), “One Idea to Rule Them All”; and N.H. Enfield’s book (2022), “Language vs. Reality”.

These reviews, full of diagrams of the interventional sign relation and detailing its relevance to the current historical moment, are collected in three e-books, Parts 1, 2 and 3, of Original Sin and The Post-Truth Condition.

1275 The owl of Minerva lands in the dawning Age of Triadic Relations.

1276 This brings me to the question of human agency.

Section 3.6 of Semiotic Agency is titled, “Development of Human Agency in Historical Perspective”.

The authors’ story begins with the Neolithic Revolution of the Fertile Crescent, starting around 12,000 years ago, then seamlessly drifts to our own current day. It reads as if our current Lebenswelt starts with the Neolithic archaeological period.

1277 This story of the development of humanity is not much different from the written myths of the ancient Near East, where humans are um… created… when some differentiated god places special seeds in the soil… or something like that. These ancient myths are recorded on cuneiform clay tablets, that are preserved by their incineration in royal libraries thousands of years ago.

Yes, incineration.

The tablets are made of clay.

The capital burns. Clay fires to brick. Brick lasts so long that an archaeologist can read the script of a tablet millennia later.

1278 The origin myths of the ancient Near East testify that humans are recent creations, formed from differentiated gods, for the god’s own purposes. That sounds like our current Lebenswelt to me. That sounds like the “Development of Human Agency in Historical Perspective”.

Why don’t civilized humans have the agency to see beyond the start of their own civilizations?

1279 Biosemiotics has an answer. Civilized humans practice a type of semiosis that differs from the type of semiosis that their ancestors practiced.

What am I talking about?

The evolution of talk is not the same as the evolution of language.

1280 Our current Lebenswelt of civilizations practices speech-alone talk. Speech-alone talk offers the comforts of implicit abstraction (characteristic of icons and indexes) and facilitates the unexpectedly profitable rewards (and the unanticipated costs) of explicit abstraction. Speech-alone talk can attach a label to anything. In short, anything can become a sign-vehicle (SV_s), just by speaking the label.

1281 So, what does a spoken word mean? Is the nature of its presence merely a label? What message does that send? The answers to all these questions are explicit abstractions. Spoken words facilitate explicit abstractions based on the purely symbolic-sign qualities of symbols.

1282 The Lebenswelt that we evolved in practices hand-talk (for the Homo genus) and hand-speech talk (for the species Homo sapiens). Hand talk permits implicit abstraction.

What do I mean by “implicit abstraction”?

The diagrams in my examination of Alexei Sharov’s and Morten Tonnessen’s book, Semiotic Agency, depict purely relational structures that hominins adapted to over the course of millions of years. The idea is mind boggling to the modern. However, implicit abstraction accounts for modern trends, such as the appearance and success of phenomenology in a civilization prospering on empirio-schematic inquiry.

1283 One of the first items of value for the biosemiotician are works that are contained in the series, A Course on Implicit and Explicit Abstraction, by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

1284 The Lebenswelt that we evolved in practices only implicit abstraction.Our current Lebenswelt also practices explicit abstraction.

06/4/25

A Brief Overview of What Razie Mah offers Biosemioticians in 2025 (Part 2 of 3)

1285 Biosemiotics challenges the current scientific vision of human evolution (as of 2025).

Okay, maybe I should correct that.

Razie Mah presents a challenge that biosemioticians should explore.

Human evolution comes with a twist.

1286 The transition between the Lebenswelt that we evolved in and our current Lebenswelt starts with the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia, nominally, 7800 years ago. That makes the current year, 7825 U0′ (Ubaid Zero Prime). The year is merely a formality. Perhaps, astrologers will have something to say about the year when the Ubaid settles as the world’s first speech-alone talking culture.

At its inception, the Ubaid is the only speech-alone talking culture on Earth. All other cultures practice hand-speech talk. The power of speech-alone talk makes the Ubaid disposed to unconstrained social complexity.

1287 The Ubaid archaeological period is followed by the Uruk (starting around 1800 U0′). The Uruk archaeological period is followed by the Sumerian Dynastic (2800 U0′). The Egyptian Dynastic starts at the same time, showing precocious development after exposure to speech-alone talk from the the original source in southern Mesopotamia.

1288 As the first singularity spreads, nearby hand-speech talking cultures drop the hand-component of their hand-speech talk in favor of speech-alone talk. Why? Speech-alone talk is the practice of wealthier and more powerful neighboring cultures (starting with the Ubaid). Speech-alone talk permits explicit abstraction. Explicit abstractionfacilitates specialization. As soon as explicit abstraction is practiced, trends towards labor and social specializationmanifest.

Wealth and power.

What is not to like?

1289 The potentiation of unconstrained social complexity shows up in various guises in the written origin myths of the ancient Near East. Of course, one well-known myth comes from an oral tradition that lasted for thousands of years, before being committed to writing. Yes, I am talking about the biblical stories of Adam and Eve.

Notice that the talking serpent does not have hands. It could not have performed hand talk. It is an exemplar of speech-alone talk.

1290 What does the speaking serpent accomplish?

It demonstrates the nature of speech-alone talk.

Surely, the serpent enjoyed the game… until the boss showed up. Once Adam and Eve leave the garden, trends towards unconstrained social complexity follow. The social circles of the Lebenswelt that we evolved in cannot withstand the onslaught of labor and social specialization. Brother turns against brother.

1291 Of course, a drama is the best way to tell the tale of the first singularity, that is, the beginning of our humanity… er… current Lebenswelt.

Consider Razie Mah’s fiction, An Archaeology of the Fall.

1292 Nominally, the year of this examination is 7825 U0′ (Ubaid Zero Prime).

And, postmoderns are beginning to realize the power of spoken words to create reality.

That is the nature of our current Lebenswelt.

1293 Here is a list of Razie Mah’s masterworks.

06/3/25

A Brief Overview of What Razie Mah offers Biosemioticians in 2025 (Part 3 of 3)

1294 Biosemiotics is born out of the tradition of phenomenology.

Biosemiotics explains of how phenomenology works in light of modern biology.

In Semiotic Agency (7821 U0′), Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen effectively propose the first step of a biosemiotic noumenal overlay. Alexei Sharov and George Mikhailovsky complete the overlay in 7824 with Pathways to the Origin and Evolution of Meanings in the Universe.

The biosemiotic noumenal overlay consists in semiotic agency and the interventional sign-relation.

1295 The examination of these works has proceeded in Razie Mah’s blogs since the start of January, 2025. The examination is not exhaustive. But, it has been revealing. These blogs will be collected into four books, titled Biosemiotics as Noumenon (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

Of course, Razie Mah has been writing and blogging on semiotic topics for over a decade. The blog may be found at Razie Mah’s website. E-articles and e-books for sale are available at smashwords and other e-book venues. These works are placed in series for convenience. A full table of contents for e-works and the blog should be available by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, a few suggestions for further research follow.

1296 For the Lebenswelt that we evolved in, the following should be of interest.

1297 For the twist in human evolution, the following applies.

1297 For our current Lebenswelt, there are many threads to follow.

1299 All these works pertain to chapter three of Semiotic Agency, titled “Human Agency”.

They show what biosemiotics can do.

1300 My thanks to Alexei Sharov, Morten Tonnessen and George Mikhailovsky, as well as the many contributors to Pathways, for interesting material to examine. As noted elsewhere, all the material in these examinations, as well as in Biosemiotics as Noumenon, are available to these authors and contributors to use in their efforts to build biosemiotics as a specialization… or… maybe I should say… a “noumenalization” of what all biological processes have in common.

05/31/25

Examining Biosemiotics at the Juncture between Non-human and Human Agency (A Look Back and Forward) (Part 1 of 4)

0829 I have, under examination, two texts that bring the inquirer to the door of a truly postmodern discipline of biosemiotics.

0830 The first book is Semiotic Agency: Science Beyond Mechanism, by biosemioticians Alexei Sharov and Morten Tonnessen. The book is published in 2021 by Springer (Switzerland) and logs in at volume 25 of Springer’s Series in Biosemiotics. Series editors are Kalevi Kull, Alexei Sharov, Claude Emmeche and Donald Favareau. These authors and editors have Razie Mah’s permission for use of the continuing disquisition, with attribution of said blogger.

0831 The second book before me is Pathways to the Origin and Evolution of Meanings in the Universe, edited by Alexei Sharov and George Mikhailovsky. Each chapter has its own author(s). The book is published in 2024 by Scrivener Press (Beverly, MA) and logs in as volume 1 in Scrivener’s Series on Astrobiology Perspectives on Life in the Universe. Series editors are Martin Scrivener and Phillip Carmical. Chapter authors and book editors have Razie Mah’s permission for use of the continuing disquisition, with attribution of said blogger.

0832 If biosemiotics is postmodern and scientific, what is modern and scientific?

The modern natural sciences (physics, chemistry, in their diverse applications) and the modern social sciences (including sociology, psychology, anthropology and other, various specialties) conduct empirio-schematic inquires, under the auspices of the Positivist’s judgment.

Here is a picture of the fully modern Positivist’s judgment.

0833 The empirio-schematic judgment occupies the slot for what ought to be and is imbued with secondness (the realm of actuality).

In the empirio-schematic judgment, disciplinary language (relation, thirdness) brings mathematical and mechanical models (what ought to be, secondness) into relation with observations and measurements of phenomena (what is,firstness).

0834 In the following points, I re-capitulate the argument in points 0201 through 0226.

0835 Notice that biology is not listed above.

In some ways, biology goes into the same basket as physics and chemistry, in which the noumenon is obvious. The noumenon is so obvious that triumphalist scientists get around Kant’s slogan (occupying the slot for what is) by substituting a successful model in for the noumenon. Then, a successful model (as the new noumenon) [can be objectified as] its phenomena. This is the character of the laboratory sciences in chemistry, physics and biology.

Here is a picture.

0836 The modern social sciences develop in the same century as the laboratory sciences.

One advantage of laboratory science is that a successful model does not completely occlude its noumenon. The social sciences do not have that advantage. Instead, social scientists observe phenomena with the expectation that there must be a noumenon.

Say what?

0837 The modern social sciences pull their noumena out of their asses and then develop an empirio-schematic charade that substantiates their intuition (that is, their guess of what the noumenon must be.

Here is a picture.

0838 The hocus-pocus of modern social science seems tawdry, at first, but then Edmund Husserl formalizes the process of assessing what the noumenon must be.

Husserl’s phenomenology is so well-targeted that contemporary social scientists blame his followers for pulling noumena out of their asses, then go about claiming that their non-phenomenological assessments of what the noumenon must be are far better, because they are guided by observations and models.

0839 Ahem, let me get this straight.

Phenomenologists use a clearly delineated methodology to determine what the noumenon must be, thereby supporting novel empirical inquiry.

Social scientists…

0840 Stop! My academic audience is agitated.

A highly credentialed sociologist yells, “Hey, you have that wrong!”

“Phenomenologists pull what the noumenon must be out of their asses.”

“Modern social scientists allow data and models to speak for themselves.”

05/30/25

Examining Biosemiotics at the Juncture between Non-human and Human Agency (A Look Back and Forward) (Part 2 of 4)

0841 Biosemiotics adheres to the relational structure of the Positivist’s judgment, but with a caveat. Metaphysics is allowed. Um… along with another caveat. Philosophical (Aristotelian) metaphysics is distinct from religious metaphysics.

Biosemiotic metaphysics consists in using Aristotle’s formal and final causes for determining what the noumenon should be.

0842 In contrast, religious metaphysics consists of applying Aristotle’s formal and final causes to real initiating (religious) events.

The positivist intellect must accept philosophical metaphysics in order to investigate semiotic agency₂, in the normal context of an agent₃ operating on the potential of final causality₁. Final causality₁ is necessarily metaphysical.

At the same time, the positivist intellect must not endorse religious metaphysics.

0843 The books listed in points 0830 and 0831 do an admirable job in arriving at a Positivist’s judgment that allows empirio-schematic inquiry and follows the precepts of oft-derided phenomenology. Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay is inherently biosemiotic and allows the inquirer to distinguish what goes into a model from what must be modeled. Sign-vehicles and sign-objects are phenomena that go into a model. Sign-interpretants are what must be modeled.

0843 Here is a picture.

0844 Take a look at the slot for the noumenon.

In their book, Semiotic Agency (2021, see point 830), Sharov and Tonnessen lay the groundwork for this examiner to diagram semiotic agency as the reification of the specifying and exemplar sign relations. That explains the “ST”. In the examination of chapters on non-human agency, the interventional sign comes into play, hence the additional “I”. The complete noumenal overlay should be be labeled “the biosemiotic noumenal overlay”.

0845 The biosemiotic overlay lays over the noumenon of every biological inquiry.

How so?

All biological noumenon are inherently semiotic. Semiosis is what all biological entities have in common.

0846 The laboratory sciences are born when empirio-schematic traditions produce successful models that can replace their respective noumena. Once a model substitutes for its noumenon, Kant’s slogan is negated. Successful models (as noumena) [can be objectified] by their phenomena.

The same goes with biosemiotics.

In this case, the biosemiotic noumenal overlay lays over the noumena of diverse biological systems and entities. It is the one feature they all have in common. Also, the biosemiotic noumenal overlay has a particular advantage. It’s configuration tells the inquirer what goes with phenomena and what needs to be modeled.

0847 Here is a picture.

0848 The STI noumenal consists in three sign-relations: the specifying, the exemplar and the interventional. The first two belong to semiotic agency. The latter does not.

The sign elements are sign-vehicle (SV), sign-object (SO) and sign-interpretant (SI). An SV stands for its SO in regards to their SI.

0849 I ask, “Which of the elements go with phenomena and which are in need of modeling?

The SV and SO go with phenomena. The SI are in need of modeling.

0850 Now, I ask, “How should one label each of the above sign elements?”

That is a little more difficult. If it helps, I know that these sign-elements also belong to three-level interscope.

0851 Here is the specifying sign-relation.

The SV_s is a real initiating (semiotic) event_2a.

The SI_s is self-governance_3b operating on potential courses of action_1b.

The SO_s is information_2b as specified.

0852 Here is the exemplar sign-relation.

The SV_e is information_2b that stands for a goal_2c (SO_e) in the normal context_3c and potential_1c of salience (SI_e).

Oh, that is awkward.

The SO_e is a goal or purpose_2c, and that lines up with the fact that semiotic agency₂ is an actuality₂ whose normal context₃ is agent₃ and potential₁ is ‘final causality’₁.

The SI_e is labeled, “salience”. SI_e includes a perspective-level normal context_3c and potential_1c.

0853 I do not have labels for any of the sign-elements of the interventional sign-relation.

05/29/25

Examining Biosemiotics at the Juncture between Non-human and Human Agency (A Look Back and Forward) (Part 3 of 4)

0854 Maybe, an example will help.

Here is the STI noumenal overlay for the lively incident where a sociologist yells at me in an academic setting about how the noumena of socialists are pure gold and the noumena from phenomenologists are pure crap.”

Oh, I meant to say, “sociologists”.

0855 Now, for those who do not want to scroll back, a sociologist interrupts my line of thought with the following shout out, “”Hey, you have that wrong! Phenomenologists pull what the noumenon must be out of their asses. Modern social scientists allow data and models to speak for themselves.”

The key word is “themselves”.

0856 Razie Mah’s blogs for July through October 2024 examines books covering the post-truth condition. These are gathered in a three-part publication, titled Original Sin and The Post-Truth Condition, available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

The word, “themselves”, does not refer to observations and models, per se. Technically, these are spoken. They do not speak. But, those who conduct observations and formulate models do speak. So, “themselves” means “experts”.

0857 Yes, experts₃ are semiotic agents₃. Obviously, one of their ‘final causes’₁ involves ‘protecting academic turf’₁. The normal context of expert₃ brings the actuality of expertise (semiotic agency)₂ into relation with the potential of ‘defending established academic real-estate’₁.

0858 Somehow, in my rambling discourse, I claim that observations, in the modern social sciences, tend to be… shall I say?… biased by the model that occupies the site of the noumenon.

To the napping sociologist, that claim_2a (SV_s) stands for information in the social sciences_2b (SO_s) in regards to modern social science methods_3b operating on the acquisition of data_1b (SI_s).

0859 How is that information_2b(SV_e) salient (SI_e)?

Social science information_2b (SV_e) stands for what the social thing itself must be (SO_e) in regards to the assessments_1cof this long-standing empirio-schematic tradition_3c (SI_e).

0860 Now, the assertion of what the social noumenon must be_2c (SO_e) is contiguous with the real event that causes me to pause my rambling lecture_2c (SV_i). SV_i is a real event. It_2c is an intervention (SV_i) that stands for an expression of intention_2a (SO_i) in regards to the normal context of this academic presentation_3a elevating the possibility that phenomenology may lay claim to the academic turf of modern social scientists_1a (SI_i).

0861 What is sort of creepy about this loop is that the professor’s shout out (SV_i) frames my original statement (SV_s) as something of an accusation. It is as if I was saying, “Modern social scientists select their phenomena (and then conjure the corresponding noumenon).”

Isn’t that uncanny?

0862 Nonetheless, the moral of this incident offers me some labels for a few sign-elements that may come in handy later.

05/28/25

Examining Biosemiotics at the Juncture between Non-human and Human Agency (A Look Back and Forward) (Part 4 of 4)

0863 Now I want to step backwards then forwards.

The current examination looks at two books, described in point 0830 and 0831..

Here is how the examination starts.

These two examinations are available as e-books, by Razie Mah, under the title, Biosemiotics as Noumenon, Parts 1 and 2. Part 1 is subtitled, “Semiotic Agency”. Part 2 is subtitles, “Origins of Life”.

0864 Part 3 concerns nonhuman agency. This examination is completed.

Part 4, concerning human agency, remains.

0865 The reading list for Part 4 starts with a discussion of Comments on John Deely’s Book (1994) “New Beginnings”, by Razie Mah. The commentary is available at smashwords and other e-book venues.

There is cause for this.

0866 The STI noumenal overlay (Sharov and Tonnessen’s semiotic agency along with the interventional sign-relation) not only explains why phenomenology works, but it also recovers some philosophical riches of the much-derided scholastic era. Modern histories of philosophy during the twentieth century often omit the period from the 500s to the 1400s, corresponding to the birth and development of universities throughout Christendom. Some call the period, “the dark ages”.

It is sort of like the way modern social sciences pooh-pooh phenomenology.

Academic turf must be protected. Who is more important, an expert in modern analytic philosophy or a so-called schoolman who can explicate Saint Thomas Aquinas?

0867 One of those treasures is uncovered by John Deely (1942-2017). Deely is both a Thomist and a semiotician (in the tradition of Charles Peirce). Deely figures out that Charles Peirce (in the 1800s) arrives at the same definition of the sign-relation as Baroque scholastic, John Poinsot (also John of St. Thomas, in the 1600s).

This discovery is discussed in New Beginnings. But, it is not the only surprise.

0868 What is of interest to me, in this examination of biosemiotics, is the fact that the specifying and exemplar sign-relations are embedded in a three-level interscope composed of category-based nested forms, which I call, the scholastic interscope for how humans think.

The reason is obvious. Semiotic agency₂ is a reification of the specifying and exemplar sign-relations.

0869 So, the trajectory of this examination proceeds by way of the following script.

0870 So, this juncture between non-human agency and human agency ends and the examinations continue.

05/27/25

The Scholastic Interscope For How Humans Think (Part 1 of 4)

0871 The scholastic three-level interscope for how humans think is introduced in Comments on John Deely’s Book (1994) New Beginnings (by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).

The conceptual apparatus is developed in A Primer on the Category-Based Nested Form and A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction.

The semiotic tool is productively used in Looking at John Deely’s Book (2010) “Semiotic Animal” (appearing in July 2024 in Razie Mah’s blog).

0872 Here is a diagram.

0873 The three-level interscope is a category-based nested form composed of category-based nested forms.

For each level, a triadic normal context₃ brings a dyadic actuality₂ into relation with a monadic possibility of ‘something’₁.

Among levels, perspective_c brings situation_b into relation with content_a. Likewise, thirdness brings secondness into relation with firstness.

0874 Here is how each nested form is articulated.

On the content level, the normal context of what is happening_3a brings the actuality of sensation_2a into relation with the potential of ‘something happening’_1a.

On the situation level, the normal context of what it means to me_3b brings the actuality of perception_2b into relation with the possibility of ‘situating content’_1b.

On the perspective level, the normal context of whether this makes sense_3c brings the actuality of a judgment_2c into relation with the possibility of ‘contextualizing the situation’_1c.

0874 Notice that the actualities are not portrayed as dyads. When they are, the scholastic interscope becomes more… well… beautiful. And, biosemioticians must be careful when a transcendental manifests, like a beautiful painting at the end of a hallway. There is no telling where that hallway leads.

0875 What about biosemiotics?

Elements of Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay fit nicely into various slots in the scholastic interscope.

0876 Can I discern a specifying sign-relation?

Here, the initiating (semiotic)_2a is a real event_2a.

Information_2b virtually situates the initiating semiotic_2a, in the same way that a specifying sign-object (SO_s) virtually situates its sign-vehicle (SV_s).

Notice that both SO_s and SV_s belong to the realm of actuality.

0877 A specifying sign-interpretant (SI_s) enables the SV_s to stand for its SO_s.

What is that SI_s?

SI_s consists of the situation-level normal context_3b operating on its possibility_1b.

In this instance, SI_s is the normal context of self-governance_3b operating on potential ‘courses of action’_1b.

0878 I can go further.

I can imagine the exemplar sign-relation.

0879 A perspective-level goal_2c virtually contextualizes situation-level information_2b, in the same way that an exemplar sign-object (SO_e) virtually contextualizes its sign-vehicle (SV_e).

Both SO_e and SV_e belong to the realm of actuality.

0880 An exemplar sign-interpretant (SI_e) enables the SV_e to stand for its SO_e.

What is that SI_e?

This is where the scholastic interscope for how humans think comes in handy.

For semiotic agency, the SI_e is vague. The normal context of salience_3c operates on a potential underlying salience_1c. I suppose the potential_1c is ‘the possibility_1c of contextualizing information_2b‘, if that helps.

For the scholastic interscope, the normal context asking, “Does this make sense?”_3c operates on the possibility of ‘contextualizing the situation’_1c.

0881 To me, this implies that the term, “salience_3c((1c))“, supports an actuality_2c that weighs perception_2b against sensation_2a, while asking what goal_2c might be attempted.

What does that imply?

0882 The scholastic interscope contains the specifying and exemplar sign relations, which figure so prominently in semiotic agency.

05/24/25

The Scholastic Interscope For How Humans Think (Part 2 of 4)

0883 Here is a diagram showing the way that Sharov and Tonnessen bring a three-level interscope into a dyadic actuality suitable for laying over the noumenon of all biological processes.

Empirio-schematic inquiry into biosemiotics may now fruitfully employ this noumenal overlay as the thing that is objectified by biosemiotic phenomena.

0884 But, there is more.

The interventional sign-relation is difficult to fathom, because its sign-vehicle cannot be seen. It must be inferred. In biosemiotics, that inference represents phenomena. It is the goal_2c as a sign-vehicle (SV_i).

The Scholastic Interscope For How Humans Think (Part 3 of 4)

0887 The judgment_2c in the above figure contains two contiguous real sign-elements. One is the exemplar sign-object (SO_e) and the other is the interventional sign-vehicle (SV_i). As already discussed, the contiguity is [meaning]. For biosemiotics, the medieval scholastic term, “judgment_2c“, corresponds to {SO_e [meaning] SV_i}_2c.

0888 At the same time, for postmodern scholastics, judgment_2c is a triadic relation.

Indeed, it is the triadic relation that stands at the start of this lengthy examination v(see point 0005).

0889 There are two types of judgment. The one depicted above is contemplative. The other is actionable. Once Peirce’s three categories are assigned, one category to one element, then the judgment becomes actionable. An actionable judgment unfolds into a category-based nested form.

Does “unfolds” sound like [meaning]?

0890 One example should suffice.

The scholastics harbor an ideal for judgment_2c. As far as they are concerned, this judgment_2c is the best. A rational intellect (relation, thirdness) brings the intelligibility of perception (what ought to be, firstness) into relation with the universality of sensation (what is, secondness).

This is a level-headed judgment, for sure. The scholastics are trying to be sensible, even when they face the nonsensical mysteries of life and revelation. No wonder they have such riotous and entertaining debates. In Latin, no less.

0891 Here is a picture of the scholastic’s ideal judgment.

0892 The assignments of the categories are crucial.

Thirdness goes into the normal context₃.

Secondness goes into actuality₂.

Firstness goes into the possibility of ‘something’₁.

0893 Categorical assignments appear in the above figure.

If the assignments are different, then the judgment would unfold into a different category-based nested form.

This is critical, if I rotate the current assignments one notch counterclockwise, then the intelligibility of my perceptionsbecomes the normal context₃, bringing the actuality of my “rational intellect”₂ into relation with the possibility that ‘my sensations are universal’₁. Replace “intelligibility of perceptions₃” with “knowledge₃“, “rational intellect₂” with “don’t contradict me₂“, and “universality of sensations₁” with “universality of what I experience₁“. Then, the unfolded nested form says, “The normal context of my knowledge₃ brings the actuality of ‘don’t contradict me’₂ into relation with the possibility that what I experience is universal₁.”

0894 Doesn’t that sound like expertise?

Rotating the categorical assignments one notch counterclockwise takes the inquirer from the scholastic idea to modern expertise. Experts are knowledgable₃, elevate their own experiences₁ over others, and do not enjoy being contradicted₂.

Scholastics are just trying to be rational intellects₃, bringing the universality of what they sense₂ into relation with the possibility of ‘an intelligent perception’₁.