Begin forwarded message:

> From: Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Practopoiesis: now I understand it better
> Date: September 28, 2015 11:19:21 AM CDT
> To: Danko Nikolic <[email protected]>
> 
> Dear Danko:
> 
> Would you like to consider a question?
> 
> After struggling with the numerous statements of Firstness, Secondness, and 
> Thirdness for several years, I settled on one of his latest renditions 
> because of its mathematical implications as well as biochemical 
> interpretations, that is the version given in his private letter to Lady 
> Welby.
> 
> In recent weeks, as a consequence of explorations of the meaning of identity 
> in utterances, statements and propositions, it occurred to me that CSP 
> proposes these terms in such a grammatical way that is extremely innovative. 
> (Recall that CSP depended heavily on English grammar to formulate his logical 
> propositions, such as in the medad and the trichotomy of nine nouns as a 
> universal logical/relational argument for whatever.)
> 
> Presuppositions: 
> The terms First, Second and Third are nouns.
> The suffix term, "-ness" functions grammatically by changing nouns into 
> adjectives.
> 
> Example:
> The ball is red.
> The red ball is (predicate)
> The redness of the ball is (predicate)
> 
> My conjecture is that CSP is intentionally invented these terms to infer a 
> special class of objects that intrinsically communicate, grammatically, terms 
> that implicitly contain the qualities of both being a noun and an adjective. 
> Thus each of the three terms (Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness) contains 
> in its sub-parts, roots of both.
> 
> Note that this usage of "x-ness" is consistent with his chemical training and 
> modern chemical logic. 
> The formal logic of two atoms combining to form a molecule is of this type of 
> usage.
> 
> Is this consistent or non-consistent with your meanings?
> 
> I presume that you will find this to be a strange question. I pose it to 
> provide you an opportunity to explore the foundation of CSP logic in the hard 
> sciences, which is direct and wide-ranging and not at all amazing as you 
> suggest.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sep 28, 2015, at 3:57 AM, Danko Nikolic wrote:
> 
>> Dear all,
>> 
>> When I presented the list with the theory of practopoiesis and suggested 
>> that the three traverses can account for abductive reasoning, I also 
>> received a number of questions regarding Peirce's work to which I had no 
>> answers. The reason I had no answers was that I did not know much about work 
>> of Peirce other than abductive reasoning.
>> 
>> Now, I would like to share with you that I have made a bit of a step 
>> forward. One of the questions (or suggestions) that I received was that 
>> perhaps the three levels of organization that I proposed (three traverses) 
>> correspond to the three Peirce's categories: Firstness, Secondness, and 
>> Thirdness.
>> 
>> Meanwhile, I have learned more about Peirce and I think that the answer is: 
>> No. The three levels of organization do not correspond to these three 
>> aspects of our consciousness. Actually, it seems that all three categories 
>> should be assigned to the same level of organization, and this would be the 
>> middle level, which I named anapoiesis.
>> 
>>  I always thought that this middle level is the most interesting part of the 
>> theory, as it can produce a fascinatingly rich dynamics to explain 
>> consciousness. Now, it seems to me that 1ness, 2ness, and 3ness correspond 
>> very nicely to different aspects of its dynamics. So, it appears that this 
>> aspect of Pierce's work will be extremely helpful in the future in 
>> describing different aspects of adaptive processes in tri-traversal systems.
>> 
>> Peirce's philosophy (at least a part of it) may even get some sort of a 
>> foundation in hard sciences, which would be amazing.
>> 
>> I hope that someone finds this useful.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Danko
>> 
>> -- 
>> 
>> Prof. Dr. Danko Nikolic
>> 
>> 
>> Web: http://www.danko-nikolic.com
>> 
>> Mail address 1:
>> Department of Neurophysiology
>> Max Planck Institute for Brain Research
>> Deutschordenstr. 46
>> 60528 Frankfurt am Main
>> GERMANY
>> 
>> Mail address 2:
>> Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
>> Wolfgang Goethe University
>> Ruth-Moufang-Str. 1
>> 60433 Frankfurt am Main
>> GERMANY
>> 
>> ----------------------------
>> Office: (..49-69) 96769-736
>> Lab: (..49-69) 96769-209
>> Fax: (..49-69) 96769-327
>> [email protected]
>> ----------------------------
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----------------------------
>> 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 .




Reply via email to