Helmut,

Thanks for your thought-provoking ideas, and I am glad you brought up
Peirce.

To me, Peirce is connected with the diagram in at least two ways:

(1) Peirce used numbers and matrices in expressing logical statements [14],
which justifies including "semiotics" as a target of Step e in the diagram.
(I would love to hear from Jon what he thinks about this step.)  The
modified diagram is attached to this email.

(2)  Physics, biology, and philosophy may be viewed as an example of the
irreducible triad of Peirce.  If so, the set of physics, biology, and
philosophy may be considered as constituting a category (or a commutative
triangle):


                                           f
                           Physics -----> Biology
                                  \                   |
                                     \                |
                                        \             | g
                                  h        \         |
                                                \     |
                                                  V V
                                            Philosophy



or, more conveniently,



                                 f                        g
                Physics -------> Biology -------> Philosophy
                     |                                                    ^
                     |                                                    |
                     |__________________________|
                                               h

Figure A.  The postulate that physics, biology, and philosophy constitute
an irreducible triad of Peirce.
                 The commutative conditions, f x g = h, is thought to be
satisfied in many universes of
                  discourse.
                  f  =  origin of life, evolution (natural processes)
                  g =  origin of mind (mental processes)
                  h =  constraining influence of natural laws; information
flow

One way to express the content of Figure A in words would be:

   "Physics determines biology and biology determines philosophy
             (062715-1)
   in such a way that philosophy becomes consistent with physics."

Statement (062715-1) may not be valid under all circumstances but only
under some carefully prescribed contexts.

All the best.

Sung



On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sung, Lists,
> I think, in medieval time it was integrated, because it all was but
> abduction (they even burnt witches because of abductive inferment).
> Disintegration took place because science invented/explored wishful
> complete induction, and deduction. Now, as abduction is firstness,
> induction secondness, and deduction thirdness, and Peirce said, that
> secondness consists of firstness and secondness of secondness, and
> thirdness consists of first-, second-, and thirdness of thirdness, maybe
> this is the path to reintegration: Eg. Heisenbergean uncertainty (firstness
> of thirdness?). Philosophy still is firstness (guessing) somehow, but has
> taken a lot of advantage from science and logic- so, as a reflective
> science (reflexion-time- reversely)., I would say, there is secondness and
> thirdness of firstness- well, virtually (reflected)-time- reversely. I
> mean, isnt that so, isnt the reflecting mirror a spatial 3D- "axis" of
> reflexion turning around the time flow direction between reality and
> (mind-) virtuality? So it is all three modes going to and fro, a happy
> family, physics, biology, philosophy reunited.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
>
>  "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
> Physics, biology, and philosophy are well established disciplines that
> cover a major portion of all human knowledge.  The natural question that
> arises is
>
> "Are physics, biology, and philosophy related ?  If so, how ?"
>                                                                (062615-1)
>
> My tentative answer to this question is Yes, because I now begin to see
> how this challenging task might be accomplished -- along the lines
> indicated in the scheme I recently formulated (see attached).  The title of
> the scheme is
>
> "An argument-symbolic-legisign that integrates physics, biology, and
> yin-yang philosophy."                            (062615-2)
>
> The scheme is not yet complete and may contain some illogical elements
> which need be identified and corrected.  If you have any questions or
> suggestions, please let me know.
>
> 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
>  ----------------------------- 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

Attachment: biosemiotics_06252015copy.docx
Description: MS-Word 2007 document

-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to