John, Auke > Cees Schuyt, a Dutch Peirce scholar, suggested to distinguish being, > existence and reality.
John Suppose somebody (Euclid for example) said "If there exists a line AB, then there exists an equilateral triangle ABC with AB as one side." Where would the line AB and the triangle ABC exist? In being? In existence? In reality? In which of those three do we exist? Is it the same one? If so, how could we go to that place and look at ABC? If it's not the same, how does it differ from where we are? -- This reminds me of a remark by Wittgenstein. From memory: The only unbendable strait line is the imaginary straight line. It has being but no existence. However that may not suit your iso initiative. Auke The proposed ISO standard says that the physical universe is the only thing that exists. It has no room for sign types, just information artifacts. No room for pure mathematics, just embodied or implemented replicas. What I'm looking for is a clear distinction with a pair of terms that can distinguish signs and reality or pure math from applied math. I proposed signs/reality. But they didn't like that because it's too Peircean. I like the pair logos/physis. But an English pair, such as Transcendental/Physical, may be better. John
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
