Howard, Edwina, Stan, Gary R, Gary F, Frederick, lists, What I don't understand is why can't we extend "nominalism", whatever it is, beyond the human mind to living cells, when Peirce himself extended the concept of Mind to crystals and that of Propositions to non-linguistic things ? Are we all confused because of the ambiguity of words ? Shouldn't we use more of figures, diagrams, tables, and mathematical formulas to help us out of these linguistic mess ?
With all the best. Sung ___________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > At 03:23 PM 10/20/2014, Gary Richmond wrote: >>Stan, Edwina, Howard, >>I have to agree with Edwina's definition of nominalism which is >>pretty standard. > > HP: Of course, I also agree that Edwina uses the standard definition > of nominalism. The standard definition of proposition is also in > terms of human language and human thought. However, we are discussing > Frederik's (and Peirce's) more general definition of proposition that > applies before humans. In the same functional sense, I am defining > epistemology as it can be used before humans. Whether these > evolution-dependent definitions are instructive or useful is what > biosemiotics is all about. > > Howard > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
