Edwina, I agree with you both that (a) it goes without saying that members of the biosemiotics list should feel free to discuss whatever they wish to and (b) that it would have been helpful to have changed the Subject line from one pointing to the NP seminar.
I sent my post to the Peirce forum because Sung had provided no context (including only one of some 10 posts in his message), and since I didn't think it would be productive to get into this matter without the fuller context (all 10 or so messages), I suggested that peirce-l members might direct their attention not to Sung's and my out of context posts, but more productively to the seminar. You are, however, quite correct in writing that I should not have suggested the same for the biosemiotics list. But as my message was sent only to peirce-l perhaps I can be forgiven that error of judgment. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:45 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary R - I can understand, since you are (to my knowledge) one of the > moderators of the Peirce-L list, that you can decide that the discussion > some of us have been having only on the biosemiotics list should not be > extended to the Peirce-L list. But I don't think that you can decide what > the biosemiotics list should or should not discuss. If people on that list > want to discuss not only NP but also other topics which might refer to > issues brought up by NP or even, might not, then I think it's up to that > list's moderators to make that decision. > > I admit that the definition of terms is almost a ceaseless and at times, > maddening debate, because these terms have been and are used in so many > different ways by different authors. In a way, that's not the real point > because we aren't going to succeed in an agenda of: "There's only one way > to use this term" . What matters is the analytic framework of these > authors. > > Howard's perspective on 'symbols' and codification - which I may not agree > with (including his use of the term 'symbol') , is nevertheless a coherent > and thorough analytic framework of 'what's going on in the non-human > informational processes'. His use of nominalism and realism is, to put it > mildly, vastly different from the traditional definition of those terms. > But once you get past the 'names', then, one can discuss the analysis and > see how far it goes with its explanations. It's up to the biosemiotic list > members if they wish to enter into the discussion. > > I think we should have retitled the Subject Line; that might have helped. > > Edwina > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, October 20, 2014 7:00 PM > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7276] Re: Natural Propositions > Chapter 4 > > 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 > . > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
