List,
Some may be interested in the following announcement of a Tool
Interoperability Workshop to be held in conjunction with the 2006 ICCS
conference at Aalborg University, Denmark.
Gary
Conceptual Structures Tool Interoperability Workshop (CS-TIW 2006)
In conjunction with the 14th
in actual fact, secondness).
Gary Richmond
City University of New York
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
Arnold,
Thanks for the reference. It reminded me that I wanted to look up
exactly where Peirce had made the distinction between 'institutions of
learning' and 'institutions for teaching' and found it here.
CP 5.5833. . . . [I]t is necessary to note
what is essentially involved in the Will to
s will subdivide by Trichotomy just like that from
which it resulted. Only as the division proceeds, the subdivisions
become harder and harder to discern.
Gary Richmond wrote:
Bernard, list,
Bernard, I trust you won't mind my copying the email I sent you the
exact moment prior to r
u believe in God." [131]
I think that perhaps that's enough for now to suggest that there might
be--at least in places--a correspondence of Bohm's and Peirce's
understanding concerning "a creative intelligence underlying the
whole."
Gary
Gary Richmond wrote:
Thomas,
N
Ben All,
Ben, thanks for continuing to make relevant Century Dictionary
material readily available for ease of list discussion. For a moment,
however, I'd like to consider not "fact" vs "event" but your question
concerning "reality" vs "actuality". You first quoted Peirce then
commented:::
Ben, list,
Here's a good example of Peirce making the distinction real vs existent
(note especially, the external world, (that is, the world that is
comparatively external) does not consist of existent objects merely, nor
merely of these and their reactions; but on the contrary, its most
And then as one of our humorists puts it: "Trois fois rien c'est deja
quelque chose" (Three times nothing, it is already something). May be
that in order to pass from Nothing to Something repetition is needed?
Bernard
Gary Richmond a crit :
But,
: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:07 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Introduction
Theresa, Darrel, Gary Richmond, Gary F., Bernard, Claudio, Victoria, Joe,
Jim, list,
Thanks, Theresa, for passing the Kant excerpt
List,
Sorry, that was to have gone directly to Ben's mailbox. Still, those of
you who know that Ben and I live in New York may have gotten my inside
joke.
Gary
Gary Richmond wrote:
offlist--
Joe wrote:
the superior intelligence of the street-wise New Yorker in comparison
with the well
Darrel,
You wrote that:
Grace thinks it is quite amusing
that so many "smart grown-ups are worriedabout nothing..." (I think
when she says worried she means fascinated)
"From the mouths of babes. . ." Sometimes I worry too that grown-ups
are "fascinated about nothing" by which I mean
on the list in
the near future.
Best,
Gary Richmond
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
<>Excerpt perhaps summarizing a 15 page abstract in English of
Briers Cybersemiotics: Why information is not enough!
http://www.cbs.dk/content/download/36989/554713/file/doctoralsummary.pdf
The Cybersemiotic paradigm combines a
non-mechanistic
universal evolutionary semiotic approach
Ben writes:
One might argue, as Gary Richmond and Bernard
Morand have argued at Joseph Ransdells peirce-l
electronic forum, that the recognition, observation, etc., are the
integrity of the triad or of the evolvent semiosis over time, and are
their totality and locus. Yet the recognitional and obs
de Moor's "Patterns for the
Pragmatic Web"
http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/demoor/patterns.pdf
I hope to see some of you at the First
International Pragmatic Web Conference .
Gary Richmond
Dear colleagues
We are proud to invite you warmly to
the First Internat
Ben,
You concluded:
If Peirce was correct in what he offered, with
a notable tone of scientific caution, as an explanation for science's
finally having significant success, then what made the difference for
science was the practice of verification, disconfirmation, etc. I
believe that, if
ject. I also enjoyed a romp through your home page
which points to all sorts of valuable resources, for example, reminding
me that I want to sign up for Skype.
Best,
Gary Richmond
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
will be
published as Lecture Notes of Informatics by the German Computer Science
Society (GI).
Please note also that the Theory, methods, and technologies section adds Applied
pragmatic theories as a topic.
Apologies for any cross-posting.
Gary Richmond
City University of New York
)
Ergo:
CP 4.76 A large part of logic will consist in the study of the
different monstrative signs, or icons, serviceable in reasoning.
Gary Richmond
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
Thomas Riese wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:23:55 +0100, Gary Richmond
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Riese wrote:
The necessity for a sign directly monstrative of the
connection of premiss and conclusion is susceptible of proof.
The proof is as follows. When we contemplate the premiss
that you are already working on some of the difficult
issues which Steven brought up, and it would appear that his recent
critique may also prove valuable. The best of luck on this ambitious
project.
Gary Richmond
City University of New York
Larry Sanger wrote:
All,
Forgive the intrusion. After
y Gerard Ellis, the
Chief Scientist of the group which developed the Sonetto product
based on CGs and CG search and rule engines. There are, of course,
other applications of CGs in the "marketplace of ideas" (mainly
European), but this appears to be the latest and most promising one.
with it immediately. I had earlier thought it was mainly an issue
concerning standards for acceptance of conference papers, but it's
really much more about spam and fake conferences.
Gary
Dear Gary Richmond:
Based on your participation in conferences, we would like to consult your
opinion and your
Thanks, Cornelis (I don't know you at all well enough to address you as
Kees), for alerting the list to this terrific sale. The volume may
also be ordered by telephone using the sale code: CMZZJX. Telephone
1-800-842-6796. The title is all that seems to be needed, but just in
case, the 6th
Steven,
You may already be familiar with them, but if not see also Peter
Skagestad's relevant papers at Arisbe, perhaps especially the first two
in connection with the present question.
PETER SKAGESTAD
"The Mind's Machines: the Turing Machine,
List,
Here's the opening and conclusion of a New York Times article today on
an aspect of the subject of this thread.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/business/yourmoney/12digi.html?ex=1142830800en=30176f24d523ea78ei=5070emc=eta1
March 12, 2006 The New York Times
Digital Domain:
Joe, Frances, list:
Joe, thanks for your response as it points to an aspect of the cause of
my "strongly worded rhetoric," as Steven phrased it, which I did not
address in my comments to him and which I refrained from adding to
those comments precisely since you had not by then responded. As
, but in a very few cases I have excluded a continuation of the
paragraph which did not seem relevant, or added a short paragraph
preceding or following the one employing the term. This has not been
indicated in any special way.
Gary Richmond
CP 1.480 Cross-Ref:††
480. Genuine triads are of three kinds
Theresa, Frances List,
Certainly Peirce at moments in places suggests that there may be
representamen which are not signs, probably the clearest
simplest example being
that famous sunflower.
CP 2.274. . .A Sign is a Representamen with a
mental Interpretant. Possibly there may be
Joe, Frances, and List,
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I can only say that I
find Frances's usage of words so idiosyncratic in sentence after
sentence that I cannot figure out any way to restate her view in
sentences that make any sense to me.
Perhaps because at one point several years ago I
irce did not invent
the term, by the way.In the Century Dictionary, Peircedefines it as
follows: "In metaph., representation, an object serving to represent
something to the mind." This is attributed to Sir W. Hamilton.
This is most interesting. But can one really equate repr
Joe, Ben, List,
I agree with Joe that Ben should be at the ICCS workshop!
Finding your discussion of considerable interest and thinking that Aldo
de Moor might as well, I wrote the following: to him (I'd forwarded Aldo
most of that earlier exchange, not reproduced below).
Hi, Aldo,
FYI,
Auke,
Thank you for your interesting comments and for the quite pertinent
Peirce quotation reminding us "that the essential function of a sign is
to render inefficient relations efficient." There seems to me to be a
great power in that notion both generally in semeiotic, but also and in
Steven Ericsson Zenith wrote:
BTW: A "tool interoperability" workshop
is not something that I would
expect anyone here to find interesting - even if the tools do deal with
"conceptual structures" - which means, in this case, schemas and their
instances.
Steven,
I'm giving the keynote
bo's "proto-signs"
problematic in part for reasons not unrelated to the above analysis..
In a recent paper, "Natural Grammar," Sarbo comments that "We gladly
acknowledge that the term proto-sign has been suggested by
Gary Richmond," but does not note that I coined this te
s program, and for both these reasons.
<>Since I am co-author of Natural Grammar your remark
below also applies
to me:
Again, my apologies. I honestly didn't know.
<>GR:Sarbo comments that "We gladly acknowledge that the
term proto-sign
has been suggested by Gary Richmond," but d
Auke,
Another inter-paragraphical response, then we can both get back to
work towards our deadlines :-)
Auke van Breemen wrote:
<>[GR] But the so-called Welby classification involves the
consideration of the role of the interpretant in semeiotic moving
theoretically somewhat far beyond the
Auke,
Thank you for providing the link to Sarbo's Proto-Signs piece.
http://www.cs.ru.nl/research/reports/full/ICIS-R05031.pdf
This will certainly be very helpful for those who are interested in
examining Sarbo's 9-adic proto-semiotic
I had
betterphrased it thus: by the addition...sneaks
Jim, Ben, list
Jim wrote:
An object is anything that can be represented. Abstract objects such
as relations also have forms and locations that can be connoted and
denoted as discussed below.
It is my view (and I think Peirce's) that words or symbols such as
not, probably, if etc refer
Jim, and all,
I've been very much enjoying reading this thread and, indeed, all the
activity of late on the list has been of interest to me. Alas, I
continue to be up to my neck in work so I can't actively participate in
any of the threads at the moment (a condition which no doubt some here
Gary,
Your concluding comment:
We are worlds in conversation, turning still.
Sometimes we spin in synchrony and sometimes we don't. When we do, we
have structural coupling, as Maturana and Varela called it. And when we
don't, we may have a chance to learn something new.
for some reason
Repenning, University of Colorado, USA
* Gary Richmond, City University of New York, USA
* Munindar P. Singh, North Carolina State University, USA
* Peter Spyns, Ministry of Flanders, Belgium
* Ronald Stamper, London, UK
* York Sure, University of Karlsruhe, Germany
* Yao-Hua
njamin Udell wrote:
Jerry,
Gary Richmond's view doesn't technically contradict Gary F.'s statements, since Gary F.'s statements were qualified by the possibility of somebody's producing evidence, though Gary F. obviously seemed doubtful about the idea of the chemical "connection." I felt kin
t 'assumes') me that
the
mathematics is sound. .
Again, my apologies.
Gary
Gary Richmond wrote:
[off-list]
Hi Ben,
Hey, what happened to your feedback on my paper? Anyhow, probably best
since I made some significant changes yesterday. BUT, will you be
available to edit and Springer-ize it in a wee
Jerry,
You asked Ben:
Can you guide me toward your work on fours?
Short answer: The Tetrast http://tetrast.blogspot.com/
Gary
Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
Dear Ben / Gary:
First, my apologies to Gary. My dyslexia kicks in at the strangest
times. I read Gary and typed Jim!
Second, I
Jim, Joe,
D.C.L could also be doctor of canon law.
Gary
PS A gentle reminder not to include whole message, especially long
quotations, in responses :-)
Jim Piat wrote:
Dear Joe,
In my Websters the meaning of D.C.L. is given as doctor of civil
law, but I don't find it in Black's Law
Jim List,
Jim Piat wrote:
My Websters gives D. Cn. L. as doctor of cannon law.
Well, I know Peirce used a few military metaphors, but "cannon law"?
:-) All kidding aside, the American Heritage Dictionary offers this:
DCL
abbr.
Doctor of Canon Law
Doctor of Civil Law
Victoria Cassiano,
I agree that Cassiano's is a sane, sound, and even
evolutionary way of looking at entelechy. Peirce too saw
that Kant and Bergson were on the right metaphysical track,
process and vitalism, not mechanism and predetermination.
The resultant 'emergent principle' is thus the
Ben wrote:
qualisign = tone = potisign
sinsign = token = actisign
legisign = type = famisign
While these are often called alternate names of the same things,
Gary has said that they aren't just sets of synonyms but instead
reflect some differences of conception. I.e., for some
Claudio, Ben, Robert, Bernard, Joe, list,
First, sorry for sending out that last incomplete message by mistake.
Claudio, so good to see you on the list again. I too am pleased to see
all the
diagrammatic discussion and especially some of Ben's abductions
relating diagrams (for example the
delete all
unneeded graphics text.)
Gary Richmond wrote,
(one I believe he hasn't posted yet, but which I hope he
will, shows a possible correspondence between Robert's lattice
structure...
The graphic which I already posted (and which is the first one
shown here) pretty much shows it.
Dennis Leri wrote:
Joe,
It may depend on your browser. Firefox and Internet Explorer opened
it while Safari didn't.
Netscape didn't open it either. Gary
Dennis Leri
On Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I pushed every button I could find and nothing
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Now, I believe he reads them in [the order "rhematic iconic qualisign"] because it is more awkward in English to say them in the other order. That is, it is natural to say, for example, "rhematic indexical legisign" but very forced and awkward to say "legisignal
Jerry,
Here's the 'classic' presentation of qualisign, sinsign, legisign (why
they are given in the order of the subject of the thread I don't know,
but the categorial order I just gave them in is as to their firstness,
secondness, and thirdness). In any event, this is the order in which
sight into the deep categorial structure of his
semeiotic. I would hope that all valid diagrams (Merkle's, Marty's,
Udell's and my own, for example) would be considered. Peirce suggested
once that a categorial analysis could never be 'wrong' because it only
tried to offer hints and suggestions which
Jim, Ben, List,
Jim Piat wrote:
Yes, but Peirce also wrote (chapter 20 Trichotomic of The
Essential Peirce Vol 1 page 281 line two of paragraph two) that "A
sign is a third mediating between the mind addressed and the object
represented".
So I find this confusing.
There are so many
portance for
thought that I attribute to them, and it would seem that no division of
theories of metaphysics could surpass in importance a division based
upon the consideration of what ones of the three categories each of
different metaphysical systems have fully admitted as real constituents
of nat
Jim, Claudio, Ben, List,
Jim I too have benefited from Cluadio's musings, and while I don't
necessarily agree with all his conclusions, I think he makes many
important points in consideration of his juxtaposing two quotations
which seem at first blush contradictory.
1. "A _Sign_, or
Jean-Marc,
You wrote:
1) we have the terms 'second', 'third' (without capital letter) without
referent.
The text which originally prompted this discussion is:
1. 274. A Sign, or Representamen, is a First
which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its
Object, as to
by Jean-Marc. Could it be that Peirce's
classifications of signs accommodates (my word for the day) both points
of view?
No, I reject Jean-Marc's analysis for the most part for the reasons I
offer below.
Jean-Marc wrote:
Gary Richmond wrote:
...btw,
do you or anyone else
know of any other
at one or another can
mediate
the others?
-Original
Message-
From: Gary Richmond
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Saturday, June
24, 2006 3:29
PM
To: Peirce Discussion
Forum
Subject: [peirce-l]
Re: A sign as
First or third...
Jim,
List,
I've been enjoying the challengin
hing that connects three things
into one)
No, I meant trichotomic as Peirce uses it in such works as Trichotomic
and A Guess at the Riddle. I mean it exactly as Peirce uses it.
Jean-Marc, as did Ben earlier, I feel the game is over. But thank you
again for helping to provide the opportunity to thi
I am appalled at the fact that one can confuse
these two aspects, it reveals a complete misunderstanding of Peirce's
categories.
You' are "appalled" at certain scholars' "complete misunderstanding of
Peirce's categories." That is to say, you have closed your mind to
anything but your own
Jean-Marc, List,
I suppose that one is permitted one additional word after he has
granted his opponent the *last word* in a matter, but only if he might
want to confirm something his interlocutor has said and where he has
come to see that he was wrong. Jean-Marc wrote:
my
comments have been
Jim,
Thanks for your lovely notes. But what in the hell does this mean?
PS -- it's a third you damn
blockhead!
Best,
Gary
Jim Piat wrote:
Dear Gary.
Thanks for your generous and kind
words. You inspire me to try to follow your example of courage and
good
ause, lead us to success in such matters. It may be that we will
fail, but at least we will have tried in good faith and camaraderie.
Best,
Gary
Best wishes,
Jim Piat
-
Original Message -
From:
Gary
Richmond
To:
Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent:
Mon
Dear Luis and List,
Sorry. I thought this was an off-list post.
Gary
Gary Richmond wrote:
Dear Luis,
Thanks for your comments. While the discussion was taking place on
Peirce-l I half thought you'd post something (I could have used your
help!) But now I see you were away during
Ben,
You wrote:
[Ben Udell] I had the impression that Peirce says somewhere that _every_ sign is a surrogate for its object, but I can't find it. It might be useful for somebody to do a search on the CD-ROM edition for the word "surrogate." In ordinary English, one could say that insofar
Joe, Ben, list,
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I hope Stjernfelt's paper is made generally available soon. He
has an important paper in Transactions of the Peirce Society 36 (Summer
2000) called "Diagrams as Centerpiece of a Peircean Epistemology".
Stjernfelt's paper,"Two Iconicity Notions in
Ben, Joe, Jim, List
Benjamin Udell wrote:
I don't see how the logically
determinationalrole of such recognition [as represented by a fourth
proxy element] can be arguably denied
and so I will stop trying to so argue. But I don't see it. Let me at
least give an attempt at a
Ben, Joe, Jim, list,
Ben, not having gotten your argument for a putative necessary fourth
semeiotic element earlier--and I've certainly tried--your most recent
comments have also not helped me get any closer to what you apparently
find near-obvious, or at least "simple." You write:
[BU] It
Here's my take (reflecting Charles' 2 semiosical triads diagrammed in
relation to each other)--
outer semiosical triad: . . inner semiosical triad:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . sign
sign: . . . . . . . . . |
interpretant
| interpreter . . . . . . immediate object
dynamical object
Gary
Benjamin Udell wrote:
Object and
signs are roles. They are logical roles, and their distinction is a
logical distinction
As I see it, it's not that simple because of the dynamical object, the
fact of inter-communication as well as internal inference, etc.
Charles may
Charles, list,
One of the Peirce quotations in your "as if" post strongly supports
your notion, reiterated here, that it is possible and, indeed,
desirable to make a double trichotomic distinction of Sign - External
Object
- Interpreter and Sign - Immediate Object - Interpretant, and that
List,
<>
I couldn't help but think of Peirce's comments on intellectual hope in
relation to the "social impulse" as I read in this letter in The New
York Times today that "Unsettling as it might be, the future is
unpredictable, and surprises are inevitable. Hope [as opposed to
optimism] is
Gary Richmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
List,
Preparing for the new college term, and needing to think this Fall not
just about my students' learning, but as I am developing leading
a faculty seminar as well (titled "Building Information Literacy in
the Disciplines&q
Arnold, Jim, List,
Thanks for your good responses especially as there hasn't been much yet
to my proposing an inquiry into pragmatic inquiry (perhaps I posted too
many Peirce quotations?) But given the near central importance of
inquiry to pragmatism (note for example that in Peirce's
Arnold, Jim, list,
I hope you won't mind my posting my response to your personal email,
Arnold, as your comments seem most pertinent to the subject of the
thread.
[Note: off-list I sent Arnold a graphic image: the reflection of
teaching as learning which is attached here and should appear
I forgot to include the graphic. Here it is.
Gary Richmond wrote:
Arnold, Jim, list,
I hope you won't mind my posting my response to your personal email,
Arnold, as your comments seem most pertinent to the subject of the
thread.
[Note: off-list I sent Arnold a graphic image
Darrel, list,
You wrote:
DS:
It would seem my teaching of letters and words may not have had learning
in my mind, hence; I am not a teacher.
It seems to me that a parent entering into this kind of dialogue with
his child certainly has learning "in his mind" at that moment
(even if perhaps
Jim Piat wrote:
Way cool graphic!
Glad you liked it. Here are a few others suitable to a philosophical
list.
And finally, a related perceptual matter. You've probably seen this
before, but it's always somewhat amazing to me (does anyone have a
theory as to
Call for Papers
ICCS'07 Conceptual Structures: Knowledge Architectures for Smart Applications
22 - 27 July, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, United Kingdom
http://www.iccs.info
The 15th International Conference on Conceptual Structures (ICCS 2007)
is the latest in a series of
ledge individually. It goes without saying that my
use of their contributions, and those of the named individuals and
instiutions, is solely my own responsibility.
Again, I am deeply saddened at the loss of this fine man and most
ethical of Peirce-inspired scholars.
Gary Richmond
PS I have se
Bill and Gary,
Bill Bailey wrote:
This is not the venue for debating the similarities and contrasts
between traditional Occident and Orient.
However, Gary's comment that he sees a close parallel to Peirce's ideal
of scientific method (or of the motivation for it) in the bodhisattva
ideal
not familiar with Millikan's work, but will take a look at the
chapter you mentioned. I too am "convinced that Arnold really was on to
something" and would hope to try to grasp at least a little of where
this "something" was headed
Best,
Gary
At 04:27 PM 9/30/2006, Gary Ri
Gary,
I would tend to agree with your analysis below, while I was especially
responsive to your interpreting the Gita in terms of what is real (as
opposed to actual), that it refers to types (not tokens)You wrote:
GF:. . . . . . . . . . . . . In Peircean terms, the scripture must refer
List,
I am forwarding information regarding a memorial for Arnold Shepperson.
In addition, I have just heard from Keyan Tomaselli that rights to
publish the Safundi article he co-authored with Arnold have been granted
so that it may be placed on Arisbe. Links to other articles may also be
87 matches
Mail list logo
