List, Sung was responding in the context of about 10 messages in the biosemiotics list where, by the way, I think this discussion should remain (that is, not on peirce-l). I won't copy all those messages, but the last one before Sung's was sent by me and reads:
*Howard, * *Semiosis is a process whereas nominalism is a philosophical view or position. You're comparing apples with oranges. * *The idea of semiosis happening in nature is there from the get go in Peirce, and Frederik is but explicating and expanding that idea [I would now add, with emphasis on the dicisign, of course GR] .* *On the other hand, the meaning of a metaphysical position such as nominalism cannot, in my opinion, be extrapolated into the biological world as you and Stan are apparently attempting to do without twisting its meaning beyond recognition. * *Best,* *Gary* I've posted this just to add a little context for Sung's recent post. But, again, I don't think there's much reason for this thread to be pursued on peirce-l, and that we'd much better spend our time on both lists discussing Chapter 4 of NP, which Tyler has nicely introduced today. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
