Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Practopoiesis: now I understand it better

[Sungchul Ji]

Hi Jerry,

Did you mean that First, Second and Third are adjectives and Firstness,
Secondness and Thirdness are nouns ?

All the best.

Sung

On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Jerry LR Chandler  wrote:

>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *Jerry LR Chandler 
> *Subject: **Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Practopoiesis: now I understand it
> better*
> *Date: *September 28, 2015 11:19:21 AM CDT
> *To: *Danko Nikolic 
>
> 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
>
> danko.niko...@gmail.com
>
> 
>
>
>
>
> -
>
> 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Practopoiesis: now I understand it better

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Sung:


I meant what I wrote:

> 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.

As I stated, it is a conjecture.

Cheers

Jerry


On Sep 29, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:

> Hi Jerry,
> 
> Did you mean that First, Second and Third are adjectives and Firstness, 
> Secondness and Thirdness are nouns ?
> 
> All the best.
> 
> Sung
> 
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Jerry LR Chandler  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Jerry LR Chandler 
>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Practopoiesis: now I understand it better
>> Date: September 28, 2015 11:19:21 AM CDT
>> To: Danko Nikolic 
>> 
>> 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Practopoiesis: now I understand it better

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Sung:

Please write more carefully. Please do not attribute your sentences to me. 

You are free to interpret CSP's words however you wish.

You are free to interpret any passage of CSP with any other passage of CSP 
however you wish.

You are free to consider any passage of CSP as good sense or utter nonsense if 
you wish.


Beyond my previous post, my only addition comment is that  two of  
extra-ordinary qualities of CSP were his training as a chemist (which, by his 
own words, appears to influence most aspects of his logical writings and the 
graphic representations thereof) and two, his expertise in linguistics and 
grammar (which one seldom finds in any philosophical writer.)

>From these two aspects of his character, I argue inductively that it is 
>possible that he has a specific grammatical purpose behind this utter 
>bastardization of terminology.

Cheers

Jerry

 


On Sep 29, 2015, at 8:31 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:

> Hi Jerry,
> 
> You wrote
> 
> "The terms First, Second and Third are nouns.
> The suffix term, "-ness" functions grammatically by changing nouns into 
> adjectives."
> 
> 
> Are you sure Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness are adjectives ?
> 
> Sung
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Jerry LR Chandler  
> wrote:
> Sung:
> 
> 
> I meant what I wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> As I stated, it is a conjecture.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> On Sep 29, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
> 
>> Hi Jerry,
>> 
>> Did you mean that First, Second and Third are adjectives and Firstness, 
>> Secondness and Thirdness are nouns ?
>> 
>> All the best.
>> 
>> Sung
>> 
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Jerry LR Chandler 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>>> From: Jerry LR Chandler 
>>> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Practopoiesis: now I understand it better
>>> Date: September 28, 2015 11:19:21 AM CDT
>>> To: Danko Nikolic 
>>> 
>>> 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 

[PEIRCE-L] Zalamea lecture series free in NYC in October

[Benjamin Udell]

Lists,

Jeffrey Brian Downard tells us, and suggests that we announce to 
peirce-l and the biosemiotics list, that *Fernando Zalamea* is giving a 
series of lectures in NYC starting next week, and is applying ideas from 
Peirce's mathematical work to logic in questions in contemporary culture 
theory.


Below is the information from the final flier (2*.*5MB, & much larger in 
email) that Zalamea sent to Downard and which I've posted at 
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/zalamea/zalamea-flier.jpg 
 
.


   


   "Grothendieck
    and a Theory of
     Contemporary
      Transgression"

   A Lecture Series with Philosopher of Mathematics
   *Fernando Zalamea*  
   Professor of Mathematics at   
   Universidad Nacional de Colombia    

   The lectures will introduce the groundbreaking work of 20th Century
   French mathematician Alexander Grothendieck in relation to the work
   of C.S. Peirce, Novalis, Florensky, Warburg, P. Valery, theories of
   topoi and sheaves, networks, art, and music, towards a generalized
   theory of transgression for mathematics, philosophy, and
   contemporary culture in our transmodern world.

   *Lectures*
 6:30-8:30 pm Wed/Thur
  Oct. 7, 8, 14, 15, 21, 22

   *Final Rountable Event *
 6:00-9:00 pm Sat Oct. 24
  Rountable including
   Reza Negarestani, Christopher Vitale, Guerino Mazzola, and other
   guests.

   *Pratt Manhattan Campus*
 144 West 14th Street,
  Room 213 (2nd Floor)
   Room 702 (7th Floor)


   The Graduate Program in Media Studies

   For more information, including the specific rooms to be used
   session, as well as a list of seminar topics by date,
   please see the seminar website at
   https://zalameaseminarnyc.wordpress.com
   Or contact Christopher Vitale at cvit...@pratt.edu

   *Pratt *

   


More information can be found at:
https://zalameaseminarnyc.wordpress.com/
http://blog.urbanomic.com/urbanomic/archives/2015/09/zalamea-grothen.html
http://thenewcentre.org/seminars/grothendieck-a-theory-of-contemporary-transgression/ 



Some important information from https://zalameaseminarnyc.wordpress.com/

   [] Due to a large number of RSVPs, we have been able to reserve
   a larger room for the majority of the events (on Oct. 7, 15, 21, 22,
   24), but on those days in which we are in the smaller room (Oct. 8,
   14), seating will be limited due to fire safety, and available for
   those who arrive first.

   Room Locations: Room 213, 2nd Floor (seats 90): Opening Session on
   Oct. 7; Session meetings on Oct. 15, 21, 22; Final Roundtable on
   Oct. 24.

   Room 702, 7th Floor (seats 22): Session meetings on Oct. 8, 14.

   No registration is required, all the events are free and open to the
   public. In order for us to best estimate attendance, however, please
   send an email to let us know if you plan to attend one or more
   sessions. Send this email, along with any questions,  to Christopher
   Vitale of The Graduate Program in Media Studies at Pratt at
   cvit...@pratt.edu .

Zalamea is the author of such books as:

   Synthetic Philosophy of Contemporary Mathematics (Urbanomic, 2012)

   Peirce's Logic of Continuity: A Conceptual and Mathematical Approach
   (Docent, 2012)
   http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/newbooks.htm#zalamea
   

   Los gráficos existenciales peirceanos. Sistemas de lógicas
   diagramáticas de continuo: horosis, tránsitos, reflejos, fondos.  
   [Peircean Existential Graphs: Systems of Diagrammatic Logics of the

   Continuum: Horosis, Transits, Reflections, Bases.] (Universidad
   Nacional de Colombia, 2010).
   http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/newbooks.htm#zalamea2010
   

   Ariadna y Penélope: Redes y Mixturas en el Mundo Contemporáneo
   [Ariadne and Penelope: Networks and Mixtures in the Contemporary
   World ] (Ediciones Nobel, 2004).

Best regards,

Ben Udell, PEIRCE-L co-manager, for myself and Gary Richmond, PEIRCE-L 
moderator & co-manager.



-
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 .

[PEIRCE-L] Forgetfulness Of Purpose • 2

[Jon Awbrey]

Forgetfulness Of Purpose • 2
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/09/29/forgetfulness-of-purpose-%e2%80%a2-2/

Peircers,

I had planned to get down to brass tacks as quickly as possible, with an object 
example
from Ashby's Cybernetics ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf ) that 
made an
impression on me at an early stage in my thinking about intelligent systems.  
But while
I was looking for that my eye fell on on another passage that so well 
articulates one
of the deepest roots of scientific reasoning that I could not resist reciting 
it here.



Quantity of Variety
===

7/1.   In Part I we considered the main properties of the machine, usually with the assumption that we had before us the 
actual thing, about which we would make some definite statement, with reference to what it is doing here and now.  To 
progress in cybernetics, however, we shall have to extend our range of consideration.  The fundamental questions in 
regulation and control can be answered only when we are able to consider the broader set of what it might do, when 
“might” is given some exact specification.


Throughout Part II, therefore, we shall be considering always a set of possibilities.  The study will lead us into the 
subjects of information and communication, and how they are coded in their passages through mechanism.  This study is 
essential for the thorough understanding of regulation and control.  We shall start from the most elementary or basic 
considerations possible.


7/2.   A second reason for considering a set of possibilities is that science is little interested in some fact that is 
valid only for a single experiment, conducted on a single day;  it seeks always for generalisations, statements that 
shall be true for all of a set of experiments, conducted in a variety of laboratories and on a variety of occasions. 
Galileo's discovery of the law of the pendulum would have been of little interest had it been valid only for that 
pendulum on that afternoon.  Its great importance is due precisely to the fact that it is true over a great range of 
space and time and materials.  Science looks for the repetitive.


7/3.   This fact, that it is the set that science refers to, is often obscured by a manner of speech.  “The chloride ion 
…”, says the lecturer, when clearly he means his statement to apply to all chloride ions.  So we get references to the 
petrol engine, the growing child, the chronic drunkard, and to other objects in the singular, when the reference is in 
fact to the set of all such objects.




Reference
=

* Ashby, W.R. (1956),
  Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman and Hall, London, UK,
  Republished by Methuen and Company, London, UK, 1964.
  Online ( http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf ).

--

academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-
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 .