Kirsti, List, Free after Wittgenstein: the art of practicing philosophy is the art of standing still when considering an issue (in order to contemplate it from all directions, I assume). My years of practicing and studying Peircean semiotics taught me that, what I call, the scalability of semiotic terminology (with its inherent danger of category mistakes) and the pars pro toto use of the terms for the sign aspects (Talk about an icon, instead of a, lets say, Iconic, Legisign, Rheme, with its involved Qualisign and Sinsign on top) provide a good reason for this advice. So, I agree let's not hurry. I respond between your lines.
Edwina, Auke, listers, I wish to point out some key issues involved in my earlier post, connected with Edwina's comments 24.10.2016 Edwina Taborsky kirjoitti 24.10.2016 16:51: ET: > "Kirsti, I like your outlines of embryos and the 'firstness' of Feelings. [I think that more research should be done on the bonding in utero between multiple birth embryos, i.e., twins, triplets etc]. ... .. your example of the heartbeat of the mother affecting the embryo-fetus is a good one. " You seem to think that the issue is empirical. And that the example of the syncopic rhythm of heartbeat is just an example, one of many possible empirical examples. That is definitely NOT the case. First, it is to be duly noted that I was speaking of FEELING - not feelingS. Also, I was speaking of EXPERIENCE, not experienceS. FeelingS and experienceS are something for psychology to study, whereas Feeling and Experience are philosophical (logical ) categories. The problems involved in these cannot be solved by empirical investigations. The rhythm of heartbeat is not "just an example". It presents a demonstration, as such an argument with just as much persuasive force as a geometrical demonstration (c.f. Euclides). No one with a sound mind and common sense can deny it, after any serious consideration. – It presents something which is necessarily so. -- AvB: This reminds me of the work of Henk Barendregt, see ftp://ftp.cs.kun.nl/pub/CompMath.Found/Coverup-model.pdf especially pages 10 and 12. 12 could be looked at as the modified (by experience) heartbeat stream of feeling at a later age. The interesting part of Barendregt's work for me is that it opened the way to pay attention to the ethical and esthetical dimensions of interpretation at the level of feeling, by paying attention to what he calls emotional attachments. For me, in your mail this is your most valuable part to dwell upon further. K: Well, then : Does it follow from deductive inference? Is abduction involved? How about probable inference? - This line of questioning just does not make sense in this case. How about the division into metaphysics and logic? - Or the modern nominalist dichotomy between epistemology and ontology? The latter just cannot be applied . From the very historical start it was established as a dichotomy . It makes no sense to even try. Peirce in his triadic category system presents us metaphysics ( as one side of one coin (or 'sheet' , if you wish) AND logic. -- AvB: Logic for Peirce is a broad concept. Given your heartbeat example, I would hypothize: Let's conceive the semiotic sheet in its embryo state, what do we suppose to be present? Given that Peirce conceived emotion (as contributing to a response) as a contribution of the individual, I would venture that the rhythm of the mothers heartbeat transferred to the child sheet, is the first individualizing force (setting apart the child from other children according to the rhythm). Later stress is a further development of this individual propensity to react, expressible in a fearful or aggressive tone clinging to the response. Logic, in particular the Boolean relations, if we stick to propositional logic, provides rules of engagement with empirical content from an interpersonal perspective (There is some reason why the Existential Graphs can be judged as belonging to the realm of secondness). The cases of children that fell out of the Dutch school system did teach me that negative modifications of this individual contribution, seriously hamper the application of this inborn logic. K: To Peirce meaning IS effect. - It does not just HAVE effects. Signs do have effects, but only in the case that they have BECOME meaningful for some minds (or something mind-like, which may be ineffete mind). Thus some kind of experience is necessarily involved. Signs may be singled out. Even classified. Not so with meaning. -- AvB: as a refinement in order to account for CSP's criticism of pragmatism from his pragmaticist stance. Getting at the meaning of a sentence is getting at the conceivable effects if the sentence is true. K: From the experiential standpoint of an embryo and a fetus, the rhythm of heatbeat doen NOT appear AS the mother's heartbeat. – No nametag involved! In order to understand this, one has to be able to take the experiential standpoint of an embryo, then a fetus as the starting point. This is something one has to train oneself. – This skill has to be has to be acquired by training oneself . Preferably daily and for decades. CSP did so. So have I. This is a practical logical task, just as is mathematical training. -- I agree with your 'just as mathematical training' since it requires discipline and attention. I am not sure about 'practical logical' as the right term. I would call it phaneroscopic experimentation. But, maybe I do not understand what you mean. I never went into your exercises. I stopped after experiencing the "name tag" pain, not as pain, but as a tuone without a name tag. I never came at the point in which the rhythm came into clear sight, i.e. as other than just rythm. Nevertheless, it is this experience, together with the recognition that your embryo heartbeat hypothesis provides the possibility to look at the emotional attachments, interfering with the logical processing of information, as modifications of this rhythm, that makes your idea interesting for me. K: Husserl with his bracketing was simply wrong. Presenting an impossible task. But Husserl was an outgrowth of a previous error. That of taking conscience as the all there is to human mind. As far as I know neither Husserl or Kant never saw the unconscious mind as a philosophical problem. The notion is implied, however, but only through NEGATION. To Kant, there were perceptions not strong enough to deserve a place in consciousness. (Too feeble). Husserl not even that. -- AvB: Regarding Husserl, for me, you are preaching for your own parochy. K: As you know, CSP was engaged with experimental work (with Jastrow). This work he continued throughout his life in the form of everyday experimentation. (Which appears to me the primary way he gained his insight on dogs, babes, ( even slime-moulds) on the working of the instintive mind. I also started my work with experimental investigations. With a series of experiments using the Uznadze experiment. So I do have solid experimental evidence of the unity of the senses. The Tbilisi school has acquired thousands of experimental results pointing to the same effect. An effect we are not conscious of, but which can be experimentally shown beyond any doubt. Of this research of mine there are several publications in English. But not available in the internet. Out of these I then developed a method for phenomenological experimentation. Then a variety of methods. Applicapble to everyday experimentation. – BUT a word of warning: It does take time and toil. Not for minds preferring sheer play with words. CSP points out the phenomenological work takes a lot of mathematical toil. And laments that people ask him to give proof of his theory, but as he proceedes to offer it, they get bored and leave. – Too much toil! Something similar happened when I was offering a demonstration of my method in text analysis & interpretation using Kaina Stoicheia. Someone got irritated on the slowness and meticulousness. Took hurried steps forwards. – So I left the discussion. -- AvB: The last sentences are an apt example of the respective contributions of logic and emotional attachments (heartbeat) to the exchange of thought. I noticed in the home sitting cases that often all what happened was not about the child (win -win), but about the effects of the emotional attachments on the grown ups discussing the trouble of the child (zero - sum). Yours offers a good hypothesis for the germ of this possibility. My educational KiF-model as a negotiation tool is a proposed remedy. It pays attention to both: with the child I have the trikon: 1. internalization/fear (sheet oriented), 2. externalization/anger (object oriented), 3. reasoned (a trade off of self and other in the light of trying to reach the desired goal). With the grown ups I have the Trikon: 1. indifferent (plans are made, not executed, but nobody cares), 2. conflict (divergence of estimation and/or goals), 3. goal oriented (given there are different estimations, lets get a clear picture of the different options and the wholesome goals, if there is a difference in goal, lets start with the option that arguably does least harm if it fails. K: Well, enough for now. -- I agree. My best wishes, Auke van Breemen Best, Kirsti Määttänen > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> > To: "Auke van Breemen" <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 9:20 AM > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > >> Dear Auke, >> >> I got very delighted by your response! Right now, I have very little >> time, but I wish to share some of my thoughts on and about it. >> >> First: The idea of primordial chaos is very, very popular. Even so >> popular that one should get suspicios in front of the popularity. It >> is commonly taken as granted that all human as well as other living >> beings start our individual lives in the midst of chaos. >> >> Even Prigogine's work Time and Change in Modern Physics has been >> often classified as a CHAOS theory, though it is nothing of the kind. >> >> All human beings start as embryos, developing into fetus. But, as I >> have shown in detail, there is no chaos necessarily involved in the >> experiential flow of an embryo, nor of a fetus. Heart beat, for >> example gives a rhythm even to the earliest modes of experiencing. >> First comes the heartbeat of the mother. It is something FELT, not >> something KNOWN. >> The rhythm is primordial. The syncopatic rhythm of hearbeat thus >> feels unanimously as something associated with eternity. (Which is >> fact to be revealed and confirmed by phenomenological studies)In the >> Peircean sensse, not in the sense offered by European >> phenomenologies. >> >> An utterly neglected part of CSP's conception of feeling can be found >> in his critical comments on Kant and his threepartite division of >> mind. >> Peirce states that Kant, in outlining the old division mistorted the >> notion of FEELING, he (Kant) had derived from Tetens, his teacher. >> >> CSP then states that he has retained the meaning Tetens gave. >> >> Now, during all the decades of participating in Peirce related >> conferences, I have never met a Peircean scholar who would even >> recognize Tetens. - I took the time to get a copy of main works by >> Tetens. - Nor did any of the Kantians I ever met know Tetens. >> (Which I find most peculiar). >> >> The change Kant made was to take pleasure and pain as the basic >> division. This mistake was later made immensely popular by Freud. >> >> Another mistake in the twists of history comes from distortions in >> interpreting the peripathetic axiom originating from Thomas (De >> Veritate): >> >> "Nihil in intellectu quod non sit prius in sensu." Later to become a >> corner stone of nominalism. >> >> However, in medieval times the Latin "in sensu" (in the senses) >> carried a very different meaning than in modern times. "Sensus >> communis" was a part and parcel of the meaning.( Also "intellectu" >> carried a different >> meaning.) >> >> As we all know CSP took back "common sense". >> >> In medieval times, with Christianity, sensus communis had a very >> clear meaning. Concience, the moral sense, given by God. >> With the teaching that one should consult one's heart. in order to >> feel and hear the voice of God. - Note: to feel and hear IN THIS >> ORDER. >> >> For Aristotle, just as well, the sensus communis (i.e the Greek >> counterpart) was situated in the heart. But of course not with the >> Christian overtones. >> >> It was in modern times that the senses were restricted to the five >> special senses. And the sixth sense was doomed into oblivions of >> mysticism. - But it was only after sciences (and humanities) were >> secularized, that mysticism was rejected. >> >> And the herintance of history was then cleansed of this stuff. So we >> are passing on a distorted view of history. Chemistry, let alone >> electromagnetism were originally taken as mystical and occult. - >> About which CSP gives a sensible account of the why's (see e.g. >> Moore's collecion of CSP's mathematical writings). >> >> Electricity still remains a mystery to be solved. But it is a mystery >> already tackled (by Jerry L.C. Chandler, for instance). >> >> Well, this is just to get started. I hope to continue later... >> >> These are very complicated issues. >> >> But: Feelings do not classify themselves. They do not appear with >> name tag. >> >> With warmest wishes! >> >> Kirsti Määttänen >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Thus feeling comes first. >> >> Auke van Breemen kirjoitti 23.10.2016 19:35: >>> Dear Kirsti, >>> >>> As in our past exchanges I value your response and its tone of voice. >>> In discussions I always try to be short as possible. Maybe this time >>> to my detriment. I do thank you for te opportunity you offer to try >>> to become more clear. >>> >>> I will add some words between the lines. >>> >>> K: >>> Dear Auke & al. >>> >>> It seems to me that you are on the right tract, but in a way CSP did >>> not share. And going along a tract, wich leads nowhere. >>> -- >>> >>> AvB: If your criticism holds, I agree. >>> >>> >>> K: >>> Although the main interest of CSP lied in science, his starting >>> point was "babes and suclings", (just google this) As have been >>> mine, even before I had any knowledge whatsoever of Peirce. >>> >>> This is were my work, since 1970's comes in. In English their is not >>> much to rely on. See, however, my astract for Applying Peirde >>> conference, at Helsinki 2007. Available in internet.I have provided >>> Eugene Halton with the handout in the conference. Which he has >>> quoted several times. Lately in a book chapter of his. >>> >>> The problem with your approach, as with almost all others, lies in >>> taking ADULTS as the starting point. And then taking science as the >>> the more restricted starting point. - No one, however is bourn as *a >>> Fichtean philosopher* , as Marx end Engels pointed out, nor as an >>> adult, nor as a scientist. >>> >>> Firstness comes first. Both in real life, in metaphysics and in >>> semiotics. - C.S Peirce did not cherish this händicap. >>> >>> -- >>> AvB: I do not think here we disagree, at least on this level of >>> detail of discussing matters. His animal examples show that he even >>> didn’t confine to childhood, but extended the thought to an >>> evolutionary scale. With his distinction between a logica utens and >>> a logica docens and his architectonic of sciences, each of the >>> cenoscopic sciences preceding the special sciences and being devoted >>> to: >>> About positive phenomena in general, such as are available to every >>> person at every waking moment, and not about special classes of >>> phenomena. Does not resort to special experiences or experiments in >>> order to settle theoretical questions. >>> >>> What I did intend to state is that it is when we look at a sign that >>> inscribes itself, the question of the connection between the two >>> divisions of interpretants comes into clear sight. For, I would add >>> now, it is then that we must ask for the connection between both >>> trichotomies of interpretants. >>> If Peirce wouldn't have been of the opinion that nothing is lost if >>> we don't pay attention to the apprehension of the sign as an object, >>> cf 8.2.1, he, as a consequence, probably could have made the same >>> arrangement as Van Driel, which is the arrangement I propose. >>> >>> K: >>> Sheets of assertion serve as ground (in the more general sense) only >>> within teh system of existential graphs. Which is the only mode of >>> graphs CSP comleted to his satifaction. >>> >>> It does not, however, follow that he consided them to be the key, >>> the part and parcel of his diagrammatic method. >>> >>> It is just the easest to grasp for in cultural cnditions where >>> nominalistic ways of thought retain the upper händ. >>> -- >>> AvB: agreed. I did not argue that. We always must keep the >>> distinction between an utens and a docens in mind. The existential >>> graphs are part of the docens, as an (iconic) reflection on the >>> utens of reasoning. >>> De >>> Tienne's sheets of description (phenomenology), if possible to shape >>> diagrammatical, will be different. As is our (besides me, Sarbo and >>> Farkas) diagrammatic KiF-proposal for semiotics. To my great >>> surprise, and thanks to the late Irving Anellis, Peirce anticipated >>> our proposal with his x-box arrangement of the 16 Boolean relations, >>> arranged from FFFF to TTTT . This passage from primordial soup to a >>> response only makes sense if it is conceived as a process, the >>> response mediating state and effect. The process in between being >>> triadic in itself. But, of course, my "self" image may be at fault. >>> >>> >>> K: >>> Eugene Halton has written an excellent paper on Peirce and the >>> distorted view Morris spread around early on. The article titled " >>> Situation, Structure and ... * I also find valid´, even excellent. >>> -- >>> >>> AvB: I indicated some of Morris' distortions short in my "The >>> semiotic >>> Framework: Peirce and Stamper". Many early bird information >>> scientists were introduced to Peircean semiotics through Morris, as >>> Ronald Stamper and his group was. I experience my talks with them as >>> an exchange between fundamental research and application. In use of >>> technical terminology we may differ, in way of looking, the >>> similarities prevail. Also in mastery of semiotics a subdivision >>> between docens and utens can be made. The utens pointing the way for >>> the docens or at least delivering content. >>> >>> K: >>> I personally came across the dominance of Secondness by makind a >>> thorough inspection on Umberto Eco and his references to Collected >>> Papers in his book Theory of Semiotics. I was to make a selection >>> for a study cirle on CSP. Quite a reluctant one, for that matter. It >>> was late 1970's. >>> >>> It was only later that I realized how narrow and misleading was >>> Eco's presentation. - It still seems to have the upper hand. In one >>> form or another. >>> >>> Existential graphs are all about Secondness. The other parts never >>> got completed by CSP. Not even outlined, at leasta in the selections >>> so far published. >>> --- >>> >>> AvB: For me it is more important that the existential graphs have an >>> alpha, a beta and a gamma part, and that semiotics has a small >>> classification with ten sign types, a middle with 28 and a Welby >>> classification with 66 sign types. Of which Bernard Morand has >>> argued that the small classification is part and parcel of the extended. >>> Which suggests an alpha, beta and gamma part of semiotics. An idea >>> that makes sense to me if I contemplate: 1. The sheet as a sign with >>> a description of its triadically arranged sign aspects in a >>> dependency structure. 2. The sheet as a sign that gets inscribed by >>> another sign and the process that leads to a response (knowledge). >>> And 3. The sign interacting with another sign capable of >>> interpretation in communication. >>> >>> K: >>> All serious, devoted Peirceans know that triadicity forms the key to >>> all Peircean thought. No taking Secondness as the one and only. >>> -- >>> >>> AvB: For me it is the interplay of all. After Aristotle, in the >>> order of things firstness is first, in the order of knowledge >>> secondness is first. I would add, in the order of understanding >>> thirdness is first, in that it is the triadically structured >>> description of the process of dyadically related and interacting >>> states and events, that must account for the response. Our KiF-model >>> is a proposal. The relation between the two divisions of >>> interpretants was key for me. The approach of Short and Stamper were >>> the trigger. >>> >>> >>> K: >>> With you, Auke, I have had some rewarding exchange of communication >>> early on, after I joined the List. >>> >>> This is why I take this time to comment your post. - You do as you >>> wish. >>> - I'll do the same after reading your response. If so happens that >>> you'll write one. >>> -- >>> AvB >>> I do thank you for your responses and wish you all the best! >>> >>> Auke van Breemen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> My very best wishes to you! >>> >>> Kirsti Määttänen >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Auke van Breemen kirjoitti 20.10.2016 13:11: >>>> Jon, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your questions. Some short answers below. >>>> >>>> With regard to sheets I suggest to read for >>>> >>>> a. Sheets of assertion: >>>> >>>> Zeman, J. (1977). Peirce's Theory of Signs. In T. A. Seboek (Ed.), >>>> A Perfusion >>>> >>>> of Signs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. >>>> >>>> b. Descriptive sheets >>>> >>>> De Tienne: >>>> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/detienne/isphans >>>> cie >>>> nce.pdf >>>> [1] >>>> >>>> c. Semiotic sheet, for a first orientation my 2007 paper will do. >>>> >>>> _The relevance of the concept semiotic sheet for the current >>>> discussion._ >>>> >>>> A signs gives rise to its interpretant sign. Lets picture this as >>>> follows: >>>> >>>> Sign -proces of interpretation- interpretant/sign -proces of >>>> interpretation- interpretant/sign – I/S – I/S, etc. >>>> >>>> Short is interested in sign types and focusses on the >>>> interpretant/sign. My interest is in the intermediate processes >>>> between two signs. In order to get a run of an interpretation >>>> process an interpreting system (of whatever nature) must be >>>> assumed. Lets reserve the term ‘semiotic sheet’ for this >>>> interpreting system. >>>> This interpreting system is a sign itself, cf Peirce’s dictum ‘Man >>>> is a sign’. So, interpretation starts when a sign inscribes itself >>>> in an interpreting sign or semiotic sheet. >>>> >>>> (1) Looked at as a first, in itself, we have the radical >>>> subjectivist >>>> (Stamper) or phenomenological view (architectonic of sciences). >>>> >>>> (2) Looked at as a second, as related to a sign that inscribes >>>> itself, we have the actualist (Stamper) or semiotic view, >>>> (architectonic of sciences). But only to the extend that an >>>> interpreting system interprets a sign (critic). >>>> >>>> (3) Looked at as a thirdness, we have the rhetorical part of >>>> semiotics. Stamper, being in his 80ies, started back then from >>>> Morris and didn’t get a clear view on this communicative view on >>>> the matter. >>>> Here we are concerned with two sheets conversing with each other >>>> (a,b >>>> -> goal of a and b,a -> goal of b). >>>> >>>> The connection between the two trichotomies of interpretants >>>> (emotional, energetic and logical; fruit of phenomenological or >>>> radical subjectivist considerations) and iimmediate, dynamical and >>>> normal interpretants; fruit of semiotics proper) can be established >>>> in 2. It sets of with >>>> >>>> Kant gives the erroneous view that ideas are presented separated >>>> and then thought together >>>> >>>> by the mind. This is his doctrine that a mental synthesis precedes >>>> every analysis. >>>> >>>> What really happens is that something is presented which in itself >>>> has no parts, but which >>>> >>>> nevertheless is analyzed by the mind, that is to say, its having >>>> parts consists in this that the >>>> >>>> mind afterward recognizes those parts in it. Those partial ideas >>>> are really not in the first >>>> >>>> idea, in itself, though they are separated out from it. It is a >>>> case of destructive distillation. >>>> >>>> W6:449, CP 1.384 >>>> >>>> So, interpretation sets of with a collection of qualia. In >>>> phaneroscopy it is called the phaneren, in semiotics it is termed >>>> the emotional interpretant: >>>> >>>> The first proper significate effect of a sign is a feeling produced >>>> by it >>>> >>>> [. . . ]. It [a tune; AvB] conveys, and is intended to convey, the >>>> composer's >>>> >>>> musical ideas; but these usually consist merely in a series of >>>> feelings (CP >>>> >>>> 5.475). >>>> >>>> From this further interpretants may evolve. First the energetive >>>> interpretants (mental, physical), next the logical (immediate, >>>> dynamical and normal). >>>> >>>> In short: The semiotic sheet is needed if we want to get a hold on >>>> the process of interpretation. >>>> >>>> Best, Auke >>>> >>>> VAN: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> VERZONDEN: woensdag 19 oktober 2016 21:18 >>>> AAN: Auke van Breemen <[email protected]> >>>> CC: [email protected] >>>> ONDERWERP: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was >>>> Peirce's >>>> Cosmology) >>>> >>>> Auke, List: >>>> >>>>> AB: As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, >>>>> no conclusions. >>>> >>>> Yes, Peirce was right to call himself "a pioneer, or rather a >>>> backwoodsman, in the work of clearing and opening up what I call >>>> semiotic" (CP 5.488; 1907). >>>> >>>>> AB: I in particular disagree with your: "However, as I have >>>>> suggested previously, the three Interpretants themselves seem to >>>>> be more properly characterized as possible (Immediate), actual >>>>> (Dynamic), and habitual (Final), with each divided into >>>>> feeling/action/thought." >>>> >>>> It is a working hypothesis, at best. I am certainly open to being >>>> convinced otherwise. >>>> >>>>> AB: It disregards the possibility of the sheet of description (De >>>>> Tienne) and a sheet of semiosis (Breemen/Sarbo) as related to each >>>>> other according to the mature division of the sciences. >>>> >>>> I am not too familiar with these concepts and would like to learn >>>> more about them, so I will review your 2007 paper, which I >>>> apparently downloaded a while ago. Would you mind elaborating their >>>> specific relevance to the current discussion, and perhaps suggest >>>> some additional reading that I could do? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >>>> >>>> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >>>> >>>> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [2] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> [3] >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:34 PM, Auke van Breemen >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jon, >>>>> >>>>> As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no >>>>> conclusions. The EP only gives a fragment of the groping. As much >>>>> of his other writings gives a lot more fragments. It may be that >>>>> only not being able to regard the blackboard (or in its mundane >>>>> character the sheets of Assertion, description or semiotics as a >>>>> sign) that prevented him from finishing the system. All >>>>> ingredients are present. >>>>> >>>>> I in particular disagree with your: >>>>> >>>>> ." However, as I have suggested previously, the three >>>>> Interpretants _themselves _seem to be more properly characterized >>>>> as possible (Immediate), actual (Dynamic), and habitual (Final), >>>>> with each divided into feeling/action/thought. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> This is the Short arrangement of both trichotomies of >>>>> interpretants. >>>>> It disregards the possibility of the sheet of description (De >>>>> Tienne) and a sheet of semiosis (Breemen/Sarbo) as related to each >>>>> other according to the mature division of the sciences. From a >>>>> sign type perspective Shorts approach makes sense: Each sign has >>>>> an element of feeling of action and of thought, but from a >>>>> processual approach it is better to apply Ockham’s razor in order >>>>> to find the system behind processes of interpretation. Peirce >>>>> paved the way for that by his notion of involvement. The logical >>>>> note books are key, in combination with Shorts (or Stampers >>>>> implied) criticism of Peirce’s focus on scientific progress in >>>>> developing a theory of interpretation. (Cf personal, scientific >>>>> and practical needs that govern comunication). >>>>> >>>>> Best, Auke van Breemen >>>> >>>> ------------------------- >>>> >>>> Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. >>>> Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com [4] >>>> Versie: 2016.0.7859 / Virusdatabase: 4664/13235 - datum van >>>> uitgifte: >>>> 10/18/16 >>>> >>>> Links: >>>> ------ >>>> [1] >>>> http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/detienne/isphans >>>> cie nce.pdf [2] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >>>> [3] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4] http://www.avg.com >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- >>> Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. >>> Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com >>> Versie: 2016.0.7859 / Virusdatabase: 4664/13258 - datum van uitgifte: >>> 10/23/16 >> >> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> ----- Geen virus gevonden in dit bericht. Gecontroleerd door AVG - www.avg.com Versie: 2016.0.7859 / Virusdatabase: 4664/13267 - datum van uitgifte: 10/24/16
----------------------------- 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 .
