Soren: Would it be fair to say that you seek to understand how CSP’s writings relate to scientific causality?
I think it is fair to ask if Jon’s views on engineering wrt CSP writings are typical of modern engineering disciplines, such as chemical engineering and molecular-biological engineering in which specific causal processes must be arranged from the body of scientific information (chemical / biological) available. Within the professions, these are referred to a “scale-up” problems. Or, otherwise as “from the lab-bench to production”. BTW, Soren, on a personal note and in reference to an earlier exchange here (2014?) on the role of electricity in bio-cybernetics / biosemiotics, I have just finished writing a paper -An Introduction to the Foundations of Chemical Information Theory. Tarski – Lesniewski Logical Structures and the Organization of Natural Sorts and Kinds. Indirectly, it draws on certain aspects of CSP logic, as well as the views of M. Malatesta’s on meta-languages. But, it focuses the meaning of quanta of electricity and the relations to symmetry. It will be submitted for publication after colleagues have provided comments. Cheers Jerry > On Oct 21, 2016, at 5:05 AM, Søren Brier <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jeff. List > > My problem – probably arising from my scientific background as a biologist – > is that I still do not see how Peirce explains in cosmogonical terms how we > get from Peirce semiotic objective idealism with the universe as a grand > argument to a physical as well as chemical theory of matter. How do we get > from the three universes to the world we are in today, with its physically > real problem of global warming? > > Best > Søren > > > From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 21. oktober 2016 01:17 > To: Søren Brier > Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt; Peirce-L > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > Soren, list: > > I don’t see why you’re having problems with seeing how this is possible > without a recognition of the independent reality of embodied conscious > subjects living in language and culture. > > Could you not simply look to the best example that embodies this integration > of phaneroscopic metaphysics that is combined with ethics, esthetics, logic; > that is combined with tychism, ananchism, agapism (together, synechism); > which supports the triadic process of semiotic through pragmaticism? > > Best, > Jerry R > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:04 PM, Søren Brier <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Jon and list > > Difficult question. The choice of phenomenology and to combine it with pure > mathematics is in itself metaphysical. Out of this combination develops > phaneroscopic metaphysics, which develop worlds and which is again combined > with ethic, aesthetics and logic as semiotics. This is again combined with > Tychism, synechism and agapism, which are partly independent of the three > categories but supports the development of the triadic process semiotics, and > his pragmaticism, from which a theory of meaning of a sign is developed. But > I still have problems in seeing how this is possible without a recognition of > the independent reality of embodied conscious subjects living in language and > culture. > > Søren > > From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: 20. oktober 2016 18:22 > To: Søren Brier > Cc: Peirce-L > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) > > Søren, List: > > Are you saying that the Categories are phaneroscopic, while the Universes are > metaphysical? > > Thanks, > > Jon > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Søren Brier <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > I suggest that in a phaneroscopic process ontology the categories will > develop into worlds. > > Søren > > From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] > Sent: 20. oktober 2016 15:34 > To: Søren Brier > Cc: Peirce-L > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) > Søren, List: > SB: I think it is fair to say that the categories do form three distinct > different universes. > Just to clarify--are you saying that the categories and the universes are the > same? > > Thanks, > > Jon > > > ----------------------------- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to > PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] <mailto:[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 > <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 .
