Dear Sungchul Ji, Helmut, et al.: The idea of considering philosophy, biology, and physics together is a good idea, for it extends the idea of the triad back through the history of thought. Take, for example, St. Augustine's *De Trinitate,* in which he argues:
VI, 2, 12, 213 So, then, as we direct our gaze at the creator by *understanding these things that are made* (Rom 1:20), we should understand him as triad, whose traces appear in creation in a way that is fitting. In that supreme triad is the source of all things… But in bodily things down here one is not as much as three are together, and two things are something more than one thing; while in the supreme triad one is as [214] much as three are together, and two are not more than one, and in themselves they are infinite. So, they are each in each, and each in all and all in all, and all are one. Whoever sees this even *in part, or in a puzzling manner in a mirror* (I Cor 13:12) should rejoice at knowing God… Saint Augustine, The Trinity, Edmond Hill, O.P., ed. and tr. (Brooklyn, New City Press, 1991). Augustine Heritage Institute, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century, Part I—Books, Volume 5: The Trinity. Ben Novak On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Dear Edwina, I meant, that time is reversed virtually, not really, and > with "virtually" I meant as represented by the mind. But now I suspect, > that the term "virtually" is not proper. I just meant, that the sequence of > the real events (1. smelling, 2. eating) is the other way round than the > sequence of the representations of these events in the rangers mind: He/she > first has a representation of eating in his/her mind (due to perception), > and then a representation of smelling (due to interpretation): 1. > repres.(eating), 2. repres.(smelling). This mirror-wiseness in time I > thought to be the reason why people call it "reflection". > Best, > Helmut > > Supplement: In order to de-deviate back to the topic: In physics this > reflection is documented in reports of experiments, but in teaching books, > physical events are mostly described along with their real sequence. In > philosophy this is not always possible, because there is more than one > model, and philosophers have to explain all the time, why they prefer one > model over the other, so they always have to show their thoughts in the > sequence as they happen. I thought, this was so, because philosophy is > abduction in the first place, looking for induction and deduction to > confirm. In this respect I suggested abduction, firstness, to be in the > first place (as the main category), and induction, secondness, and > deduction, thirdness to be subcategories of firstness in this case. But > that was wrong. > Best, > Helmut > > > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sorry, Helmut - I've no idea what you are talking about. > > I don't think that 'time' is reversed when the ranger thinks about the > wolf having smelled the rabbit before it caught the rabbit. Because one > thinks about what has taken place before -now, doesn't mean that TIME is > itself reversed! Time isn't physically connected to an event. > > And I don't know what your reference to the categories implies; I think > that you often have a confused understanding of the categories - but- I > won't go into them. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Helmut Raulien > *To:* Edwina Taborsky > *Cc:* biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-L > *Sent:* Sunday, June 28, 2015 2:58 PM > *Subject:* Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can we integrate physics, biology, and > philosophy ? > > Thank you, Edwina! Sorry for my mistake: When in reality a wolf smells a > rabbit, and then eats it, and a ranger sees the eating wolf and thinks: > "The wolf must have smelled the rabbit", time is virtually reversed > somehow, but not the categories. > Best, > Helmut > > > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Helmut - try EP:2, pp 480-481. And the CP, Vol. 8, ..all the parts to > Lady Welby. > > See also an interesting article: > http://see.library.utoronto.ca/SEED/Vol6-1/Farias_Queiroz.pdf > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Helmut Raulien > *To:* Sungchul Ji > *Cc:* biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-L > *Sent:* Sunday, June 28, 2015 12:11 PM > *Subject:* Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can we integrate physics, biology, and > philosophy ? > > Sung, > I am glad, that my post you did not find too inadequate, as I have not yet > read your attachment (with my old computer that cannot read DOCX- So I will > go to the internet-cafe). I am not sure about what I wrote- that reflexion > turns time around (virtually, in the mind), and also provides the > possibility that there is a secondness and thirdness of firstness (in a > virtual way or system: A mind). So now I am asking: Does anybody know about > the ten classes of signs in a semiosis with immediate object (object of the > mind)? I sometimes have read, that Peirce has written about these, and that > the ten classes with immediate object are different. But I havent found the > text by Peirce. > All the best, > Helmut > > > "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 . > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
