Oh, I forgot to add one more to the list of the concepts and principles embodied in Figure 1 of my previous post, i.e.,
(vi) the mathematical theory of categories. As you can see, I am able to connect these diverse elements of discourses in one theoretical framework (whose validity remains to be proven) because of the enormous power of DIAGRAMS. If I had to depend only on words and sentences, I probably would not have been able to do this as naturally and convincingly. All the best. Sung On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> wrote: > Helmut, > > You are raising some interesting questions. > > I wonder if mind is irreducibly triadic, meaning that it has three > properties that are inseparably linked like a Borromean. I am inclined to > refer to these three properties or aspects of mind as 'mind as IS' (1ns > mind), 'mind as EXPERIENCED' (2ns mind), and 'mind as MODELED' (3ns mind), > and these may form a mathematical category: > > f g > 1ns Mind --------> 2ns Mind --------> ins Mind > | ^ > | | > |____________________________| > h > > Figure 1. Mind as an irreducible triad of Peirce (ITP). > f = self-organization (?); g = origin of life (?); h = information flow o > the origin of language (?) > > What may be significant about Figure 1 is that it provides a coherent > framework for relating seemingly unrelated concepts -- > > (i) mind, > (ii) Peircean triadic metaphysics, > (iii) principle of set-organization, > (iv) the origin of life {i.e., biology), and > (v) language and informatics. > > If you have any questions or comments, let me know. > > All the best. > > Sung > > > > > . > > > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 6:02 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Supplement: Patient and agent for me are not a dyad, but parts of a >> triad, consisting of: Patiens, Agens, Effect. Neither of these three is >> thinkable or senseful with one of them missing. >> Dear Stan, Peirceans, >> Dyadicity or triadicity? My hypothesis about dyadicity is, that there are >> two kinds of systems, distinguished by their two kinds of space. One is >> reality systems with their space consisting of the three dimensions we >> know, which are usually named "x, y, z", or "width, broadth, depth". The >> other kind of systems, the mind systems, or virtual sytems, have an >> imaginary space. How many dimensions this space has, depends on the >> imagination capability of the imaginer. According to Peirce though, this >> space is one, he has called it "Phaneron". I dont know, if I can believe >> that it is one. What do you think? So, for me dyadicity lies in the >> existence of these two kinds of space (real and imagined by the - or some- >> mind). Triadicity is, that both of these spaces or system types are by >> themselves triadic. So for me, dyadicity and triadicity are not >> contradicting each other, they just adress different things. Body-mind is a >> dyad, or what might be there suggested for a third element? But the body, >> physics, chemistry and so on, underlies semiotic triadicity. Also the mind. >> Now, what is the connection between body and mind, or between reality and >> virtuality? My proposal: It is firstness, shared by both. Not so? What do >> you think? >> Best regards! Helmut >> >> >> *Von:* "Stanley N Salthe" <[email protected]> >> >> Howard, Peirceans, >> >> In my model of Peircean semiotic I have the object (Peircean sense) >> separate from the 'system of interpretance', which includes the signs as >> well as the apparatus for generating interpretants That is, I believe that >> I have folded the Peircean triad into a dyadic diagram, without losing its >> triadicity. This was done because I am coming to semiotics from science. >> Has anyone an objection to this procedure? >> >> STAN >> >> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Howard Pattee <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> At 05:46 PM 5/5/2015, Gary Fuhrman wrote: >>> >>> It's quite a stretch to read [the Peirce quote] as an assertion that >>> "the subject-object relation" is "obscure and mysterious," and it has >>> nothing to do with the "mind-matter problem" which is the legacy of >>> Cartesian dualism. >>> >>> >>> What is the stretch? Your statement makes no sense to me. The quote is >>> explicit. It is about the relation between the mathematical *symbols* >>> in the chemist's *mind* (the subject), and the chemical matter in >>> nature (the object). The relation between subject and object (or image and >>> object, mind and matter or symbol and matter, observer and observed or the >>> knower and the known, etc.) are all cases of the same old epistemic problem >>> -- the relation of observed shadows (in Plato's cave) to the light of >>> reality. Here is the quote again: >>> >>> Peirce: “The result that the chemist *observes* is brought about by* >>> nature*, the result that the mathematician observes is brought about by >>> the associations of the* mind*. . . the power that connects the >>> conditions of the mathematicians diagram with the relations he >>> *observes* in it is just as occult and mysterious to us as the power of >>> Nature that brings about the results of the chemical experiment." >>> >>> HP: Peirce clearly distinguishes the* mind* of the observer from >>> natural *matter* that is observed. I call this an epistemic mind-matter >>> problem. (Descartes substance dualism is irrelevant.) All epistemic >>> concepts like detection, observation, measurement, etc. do not make any >>> sense without separating the categories of *subject* and *object*. This >>> distinction is not just a metaphysical principle. It is a pragmatic >>> empirical necessity that all sciences require. >>> >>> Metaphysically lumping "matter as effete mind" still leaves Peirce >>> making the same basic epistemic subject-object distinctions: "A *sign* >>> is a thing which serves to convey knowledge of some other thing, which it >>> is said to* stand for *or *represent*. This thing is called the *object* >>> of the sign; the idea in the mind that the sign excites, which is a mental >>> sign of the same object, is called an *interpretant* of the sign.” >>> >>> I don't see why Peirce would have any problem with modern empiricism, >>> other than his irrefutable and unfalsifiable metaphysics of "matter as >>> effete mind." >>> >>> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 > -- 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
----------------------------- 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 .
