[PEIRCE-L] determination

Dear list members,   some time later maybe I will work on my idea, that there are three kinds of systems hierarchy, besides the Salthean composition and subsumption also determination, so it is composition (1ns), determination (2ns) and classification (3ns). I call subsumption classification,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Evolution of Peirce's theoretical foundation from 1903 to the end

List, I learn that Jon Schmid (henceforth JS) has proposed an ordering of the three interpretants which differs from one that I suggest in a paper published in *Semiotica *(which is indeed the published version of the text mentioned by John Sowa in a private conversation). As JS states in his

Re: [PEIRCE-L] determination

Helmut, list According to Peirce, the definition if "renders definitely to be such as it will be" *"We thus learn that the Object determines (i.e. renders definitely to be such as it will be) the Sign in a particular manner.*(CP 8.361)342-379 M-20b *(1908))* Within the MS 611, p.67-68, Peirce

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] determination

  Robert, List,   Thank you! And is that definition different from my Boolean assumption? Boole is about true/false, but "renders definitely to such as it will be", and "particular manner" sound like something between true or false, but is that so? "Not particular" and "not definitely" might

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Evolution of Peirce's theoretical foundation from 1903 to the end

This is a discussion we’ve had with JAS before - and I agree with Dr. Jappy [TJ]. . I agree with his view of semiosis as ’thought in action’ . My own view of Peircean semiosis is that it outlines an active, adaptive, evolving process of mind-as-matter formation; ie, an agapastic process. This

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Evolution of Peirce's theoretical foundation from 1903 to the end

Edwina, Tony, Jon, List, I'd like to emphasize the first word of the subject line: Evolution. I believe that is the best single word to describe Peirce's developments in from 1903 to 1906 to 1908 to 1911 to his last long letter of 1913, in which he highlighted the features he considered

[PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

Jon, I forgot to thank you for including the link to Peirce's definition of 'mark': Peirce presents in his entry for it in Baldwin's Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology (https://gnusystems.ca/BaldwinPeirce.htm#Mark) Yes indeed. That definition shows that two things that have the same

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Evolution of Peirce's theoretical foundation from 1903 to the end

List: It is telling that this rebuttal does not address my first and most important reason for equating "the Destinate Interpretant" to the final interpretant and "the Explicit Interpretant" to the immediate interpretant (SS84, EP 2:481, 1908 Dec 23), namely, because the terms themselves clearly

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mark Token Type

John, List: JFS: That definition shows that two things that have the same mark are two tokens of the same type. This is another reason why "tone" is a better choice than "mark" for "an indefinite significant character such as a tone of voice." Two things can have *different *tones, yet be

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Evolution of Peirce's theoretical foundation from 1903 to the end

John, List: JFS: I noticed that Tony also adopted Peirce's final choice of 'mark' instead of 'tone'. Again, going by the manuscript dates, Peirce's *final *choice was "tone" (R 339, 27 Dec 1908, https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:15255301$636i), not "mark" (CP 8.363-364, EP 2:488,