Frederik: While I heartily agree with you that one of the principle objectives of Peircian logic is to chain together a sequence of natural propositions, but I am puzzled by this paragraph.
On Sep 4, 2014, at 3:21 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt <stj...@hum.ku.dk> wrote: > The main idea of the first chapter is the claim that one of the most > important lessons to take from Peirce lies not in single parts of his > semiotics, like some of the famous triads. Rather, it lies in the vast > reorientation of the whole domain of sensation, perception, logic, reasoning, > thought, language, images etc. which it entails. That reorientation takes the > chain of reasoning as its primitive phenomenon. The claim is that it may be > formally described, independently of the materials in which it may be > implemented. My response is in the same general vain as Clark’s. Allow me to parse the paragraph. > Rather, it lies in the vast reorientation of the whole domain of sensation, > perception, logic, reasoning, thought, language, images etc. which it entails. This sentence appears to me as to a description of chemical / biochemical research in the sense of Schelling as spirit/nature relations with respect to the visible/invisible. > That reorientation takes the chain of reasoning as its primitive phenomenon. Chemists believe in such a primitive relation between atoms and molecules. Indeed, another name for this primitive chain of reasoning is “proof of structure” which is an inductive form of reasoning which associates the names of atoms with the names of molecules by specifying the relations among atoms. > The claim is that it may be formally described, independently of the > materials in which it may be implemented. This assertion appears to negate the associative logic between the identities of atoms and the identities of molecules such as you give in your assertions in Diagramatology, p. 208, which appears to focus on specific identities of materials as “proof of structure”. The origin of this biological data is clear. I am uncertain about the meaning you seek to project in the paragraph with respect origin of data in the sense "of the whole domain of sensation, perception, logic, reasoning, thought, language, images etc. which it entails." Would you like to re-phrase your position? Or, do you have another formal description of this diagram, perhaps in terms of mathematics, physics, thermodynamics, iconic diagrams, indexes, symbol systems, or whatever? Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
