Jon, Gary F., List, Ok, I see. And the composition-classification-topic I don´t oversee it at the moment, it becomes quite complex, if one tries to elaborate it. Like there are different, perhaps categorial, kinds of composition: C. from traits, spatiotemporal c., and functional c.. There are different kinds of classification as well, which I have not satisfyingly for me identified yet. And, if composition and classification are categorial too, I suspect them being 1ns and 3ns, then there should be a 2ns systems hierarchy in between, like doiminance, with three subkinds too. This is complex, like the ten classes of signs, I think it is interesting, maybe some time I will do more about it, or hope, one of you may, in case I have stirred some interest?
Best Regards, Helmut > Gesendet: Samstag, den 10.09.2022 um 17:26 Uhr > Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> > An: Peirce-L <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] two kinds of vibration > > Helmut, List: > > HR: "To make our ideas clear", a word should have only one meaning, > > > Peirce agrees, especially when it comes to scientific (including > philosophical) terminology. > > CSP: As to the ideal to be aimed at, it is, in the first place, desirable > for any branch of science that it should have a vocabulary furnishing a > family of cognate words for each *scientific *conception, and that each > word should have a single exact meaning, unless its different meanings > apply to objects of different categories that can never be mistaken for one > another. (CP 2.222, EP 2:264, 1903) > > > The different categories here are metaphysics, where existence is defined > as reacting with other like things in the environment, and logic, where > existence is defined as belonging to the universe of discourse. > Unfortunately, in this case, they *can *be (and often are) mistaken for one > another. Nevertheless, we really just need to be clear about the context > and then employ or avoid the word accordingly. > > HR: Reality has two parts, nonexistent, and existent reality. There are two > kinds of existence: Reactions and habits/laws/possibilities. > > > No, when we are talking about reality, we are in the realm of metaphysics, > where there is properly speaking only one kind of existence--reactions. > Habits, laws, and possibilities are not properly described as having > existence in this context. As Gary F. noted, possibilities (1ns) and > habits/laws (3ns) have modes of being that are different from existence > (2ns). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 6:35 AM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Jon, List, > > > > Altough I see your explanation, I am not completely happy with two > > different definitions of "existence", or two different universes of > > experience. "To make our ideas clear", a word should have only one meaning, > > is what I feel. Otherwise there would be a possibility of rethorical moves > > to bend any discussion in one´s direction, or refute any opposing argument. > > Different ranges of a word´s meaning: Ok, sounds not false, but does not > > soung general or fundamental enough to me. But, as I said, not false > > either. So the composition-classification model is not opposing the > > different-range-model, but just another model to get a better grip at the > > topic. With composition, a subset is a part of, and with classification it > > is a kind of the superset. I still feel that we can say: Reality has two > > parts, nonexistent, and existent reality. There are two kinds of existence: > > Reactions and habits/laws/possibilities. This may even be in accord with > > two different universes of discourse: Maybe existential graphs (connection > > wit "And") are classificatory, and entitive graphs (connection with "Or") > > are compositional. Both kinds of graph have their different kinds of sheet > > of assertion/universe of discourse. As I said, this post is not meant to > > oppose yours, just trying to show another angle of view. > > > > Best Regards, Helmut > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
