[PEIRCE-L] Second Call for Small Grant Proposals: God and Consciousness in Indian Traditions

[God and Consciousness Project Team GAC]

*Please circulate widely. Apologies for multiple emails.*





*SECOND CALL FOR SMALL GRANT PROPOSALS: PAPER INCUBATOR*





*Deadline*: January 5, 2024

*Website*: www.god-and-consciousness.com/grants



The project Concepts of God and the Variety of Theisms in Indian
Traditions: Towards a Theistic Theory of Consciousness
 is an initiative that has as
general goals (1) to philosophically reconstruct concepts of God in Indian
theistic (or theistically inclined) traditions, namely from Vaishnava,
Shaiva, Shakti, indigenous or other religious perspectives on the
subcontinent, and (2) to investigate the extent to which issues explored by
such traditions can contribute to the philosophy of consciousness. It is
supported by funding totaling $260,000 from the John Templeton Foundation

.



As part of the project, we will organize a paper incubator
: a systemized and sponsored
mentorship program designed to help junior and mid-career philosophers and
scholars of Indian studies to develop submitted papers proposals into
publishable articles. Each selected researcher will work in cooperation
with a tutor, who will help the candidate transform their text into a
high-quality publishable article. Each successful applicant will
receive a *grant
of 3,000 USD*. They will have 18 months to write their article, which must
be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. Each researcher must present their
work in at least one of our three conferences
 (a bonus of *1,000
USD* will
be given to those who attend the conference in person). The grant will be
awarded through bank transfer, on which bank and federal revenue fees may
apply.



Proposals must be written in English in the form of an extended abstract of
a maximum of 2,000 words, clearly describing (1) the problem that will be
addressed, (2) the context in which the problem has been approached
(preferably through a brief literary review), (3) the goal of the paper,
and (4) the way the proponent wants to achieve this goal. The proposal
should also contain (5) a list with the relevant bibliography. The general
intended approach must be consistent with analytic philosophy of religion.
Proposals must address some of the questions and general goals
 of the project.
Applicants must be PhD candidates, or have completed their PhD within a
maximum of 6 years. We welcome proposals both from philosophers and Indian
Studies scholars. The proposal must be sent along with a summarized CV of
the applicant to god.and.consciousn...@gmail.com by January 5, 2024. The
list of selected proposals will be posted on the website on January 15,
2024.


Follow us on social media:

X (twitter): https://twitter.com/GodandConscious

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/God.and.Consciousnesss
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 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.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Role of Copula in the logic of Grammars.

[John F Sowa]

Jerry,

I presented a talk at a Peirce session of an APA conference in April 2015.  On 
slide 19 of that talk, I made the point that Peirce's EGs resolve a supposed 
ambiguity of the word 'is'.  Some logicians claim that it's ambiguous because 
that verb can be used in three different ways.  See below for a copy of slide 
19,  But in Peirce's EGs, all three uses of the word 'is' map to a line of 
identity.  There is no ambiguity.

For the full presentation, see https://jfsowa,com/talks/ppe.pdf

John


Translating the Word is to Logic
Three different translations in predicate calculus:
● Existence: There is x. ↔ ∃x.
● Predication: x is a cat. ↔ Cat(x)
● Identity: x is y. ↔ x=y
Do these three translations imply that English is ambiguous?
Or is the algebraic notation too complex?
In EGs, all three uses of the word is map to a line of identity:
● Existence: There is x. ↔ ▬
● Predication: x is a cat. ↔ ▬Cat
● Identity: x is y. ↔ ▬▬ (a ligature of two lines)
As Peirce said, EGs are more iconic than the algebraic notation:
they relate language to logic more clearly and directly.
Frege and Russell were misled by their notations.


From: "Jerry LR Chandler" 
Sent: 12/5/23 10:08 PM
To: Peirce List , Mike Bergman 
Cc: Jerry LR Chandler , John F Sowa 
, Ontolog Forum 
Subject: Role of Copula in the logic of Grammars. Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and 
Knowledge Representation

Mike, List

On Dec 5, 2023, at 1:51 PM, Mike Bergman  wrote:

In a slightly related issue, have you any comments on CSP’s papers on the role 
of the copula in representation theory?  In other words, have you addressed the 
inferences between predicate logics and the grammar of copulated sentences 
(syllogisms)?

No, I have not studied this topic. I do speculate some on Peirce and grammars 
and semantic parsing in Chap 16, but without specific reference to the copula. 
I'd welcome hearing whatever thoughts you have on this topic.

Symbolic logic is an economic tool.  My concerns are scientific logics 
expressed in various scientific notations that are not easily translated into 
bits and bytes..

Briefly, the developments  of symbolic logics through the inventions of logical 
constants has nearly eliminated the possibility of expressing the 
fine-structures of scientific discourse.  The difficulty of illating between 
complex grammatical structures, such as though commonly used in molecular 
biology and precision medicine is immense. The transactional foundations of a 
copulated “subject-subject” sentences is extra-ordinarily difficult to express 
in predicate logic.

Finally, the challenges related to ascribing attributes of systems (noun 
properties) rather than merely descriptions further limit the utility of the 
current intellectual mess known as “symbolic logic”.

[Some readers here will recall my posts on the axiological mathematics of the 
atomic number system which in grounded in the scientific S-V-P sentences. ]

Hopefully, these terse sentences will give you a glimpse at the meanings CSP 
intended in his scientifically-grounded texts on multiple graph theories.

Cheers
Jerry
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 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] Fw: Aw: Re: interpretant and thirdness

[Helmut Raulien]

 

 
 

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Dezember 2023 um 20:02 Uhr
Von: "Helmut Raulien" 
An: jonalanschm...@gmail.com
Cc: "Peirce-L" 
Betreff: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness



Jon, List,

 

Thank you, Jon! Regarding the by you mentioned difference between "top down" and "bottom up", I guess, that a theory mostly goes top down, attempting to follow reality, given that the theory (and reality too, of course) is not e.g. solipsistic or nominalistic. I mean, if it is a universal theory, which claims, that everything is somehow connected. I think, that should be common ground for a rational discussion about theory, because otherwise there would be the paradoxon of a theory, that is trying to refute the need of a theory. "Bottom up", I think, is the way an analysis goes, e.g. if you analyse a certain sign. It would be good, I think, if the underlying theory would provide the means for an analysis to follow the theory´s (and ideally reality´s) synthetic structure in opposite direction. For example, if an interpretant serves as a sign, only a little bit of its information is being used for that, so what happens with the rest. I´d say, it (the interpretants) likely serve as other signs too, but these are all firstnesses. A final interpretant can turn into an object, I think, but that is a secondness. So, because i think, that thirdness doesn´t necessarily dissipate this way, I guess, that its thirdness somehow may turn into structure or change of structure. Structure would be the set of relations of a somehow superordinate sign or system (maybe a system is a sign as well), that provides the possibility of a sign in the way, that it makes it recognizable. I mean, an event only becomes a sign, if there is a preexisting relation between its type and an object. For example, if I am in the middle of a crowd of people in Papua-New Guinea, and somebody is uttering a word in Papuan, I donot tell it from the background noise, but if somebody is uttering e.g. an english word which I know, this works as a specific sign for me. Ok, this example is about symbols and consciousness, but if you have a mixture of salts in (saturated, still concentrating) water, and there already is a small piece of solid salt of one kind, other molecules of the same kind will form a crystal around it, but the other salts will remain soluted. In the digital overinformated brew, bad crystals appear, like fake news and conspiracy theories. An overinformated brew is a structure. There are fact-checkers trying to change this structure, e.g. by saying: Ok, there is this mexican gang selling meth and shooting people, but there also are 1000 or so decent Mexicans in our country, getting along well with us and contributing to the whole societie´s well-being. (in Germany it would not be about Mexicans, but rather about people from middle-east countries, but the same topic). So, in the same way, that it might be possible to add some chemical to the mixture of salts, inhibiting the growth of one crystal alone, I guess it might be possible to change the structure of a society in the way, that the growth of prejudices is inhibited. I want to buy the book by Karl Popper: "The open society and its enemies". I guess I will approve to 90% of the book, except to classifying anyone as enemy, because I think, that an open society should merely reject actions of people, but not people themselves, that is to forgive mistakes that are recognized by the mistaken, and thus give people the chance to reform (if not  just quit, which is not always possible) the ideology that has controlled them. The underlying theory should be a systems theory that does not define class or culture struggle as fight between people, but between the individuals and systems (or let´s say superordinate signs) that intend to dominate the individuals. Tribalism does never serve the individuals, but only the systems.

 

Best, Helmut

 
 

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Dezember 2023 um 15:11 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
An: "Peirce-L" 
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness



Helmut, List:
 

Assignments of Peirce's three universal categories to different phenomena are not absolute, they are contextual in accordance with the relevant relations among them. For example, the sign, its object, and its interpretant only correspond respectively to 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns within their genuine triadic relation.

 




CSP: A Representamen [sign] is the First Correlate of a triadic relation, the Second Correlate being termed its Object, and the possible Third Correlate being termed its Interpretant, by which triadic relation the possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of the same triadic relation to the same Object, and for some possible Interpretant. (CP 2.242, EP 2:290, 1903)





 

CSP: I will say that a sign is anything, of whatsoever mode of being, which mediates between an object and an interpretant; since it is both determined by the object relatively to the 

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness

[Helmut Raulien]

Jon, List,

 

Thank you, Jon! Regarding the by you mentioned difference between "top down" and "bottom up", I guess, that a theory mostly goes top down, attempting to follow reality, given that the theory (and reality too, of course) is not e.g. solipsistic or nominalistic. I mean, if it is a universal theory, which claims, that everything is somehow connected. I think, that should be common ground for a rational discussion about theory, because otherwise there would be the paradoxon of a theory, that is trying to refute the need of a theory. "Bottom up", I think, is the way an analysis goes, e.g. if you analyse a certain sign. It would be good, I think, if the underlying theory would provide the means for an analysis to follow the theory´s (and ideally reality´s) synthetic structure in opposite direction. For example, if an interpretant serves as a sign, only a little bit of its information is being used for that, so what happens with the rest. I´d say, it (the interpretants) likely serve as other signs too, but these are all firstnesses. A final interpretant can turn into an object, I think, but that is a secondness. So, because i think, that thirdness doesn´t necessarily dissipate this way, I guess, that its thirdness somehow may turn into structure or change of structure. Structure would be the set of relations of a somehow superordinate sign or system (maybe a system is a sign as well), that provides the possibility of a sign in the way, that it makes it recognizable. I mean, an event only becomes a sign, if there is a preexisting relation between its type and an object. For example, if I am in the middle of a crowd of people in Papua-New Guinea, and somebody is uttering a word in Papuan, I donot tell it from the background noise, but if somebody is uttering e.g. an english word which I know, this works as a specific sign for me. Ok, this example is about symbols and consciousness, but if you have a mixture of salts in (saturated, still concentrating) water, and there already is a small piece of solid salt of one kind, other molecules of the same kind will form a crystal around it, but the other salts will remain soluted. In the digital overinformated brew, bad crystals appear, like fake news and conspiracy theories. An overinformated brew is a structure. There are fact-checkers trying to change this structure, e.g. by saying: Ok, there is this mexican gang selling meth and shooting people, but there also are 1000 or so decent Mexicans in our country, getting along well with us and contributing to the whole societie´s well-being. (in Germany it would not be about Mexicans, but rather about people from middle-east countries, but the same topic). So, in the same way, that it might be possible to add some chemical to the mixture of salts, inhibiting the growth of one crystal alone, I guess it might be possible to change the structure of a society in the way, that the growth of prejudices is inhibited. I want to buy the book by Karl Popper: "The open society and its enemies". I guess I will approve to 90% of the book, except to classifying anyone as enemy, because I think, that an open society should merely reject actions of people, but not people themselves, that is to forgive mistakes that are recognized by the mistaken, and thus give people the chance to reform (if not  just quit, which is not always possible) the ideology that has controlled them. The underlying theory should be a systems theory that does not define class or culture struggle as fight between people, but between the individuals and systems (or let´s say superordinate signs) that intend to dominate the individuals. Tribalism does never serve the individuals, but only the systems.

 

Best, Helmut

 
 

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Dezember 2023 um 15:11 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" 
An: "Peirce-L" 
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness



Helmut, List:
 

Assignments of Peirce's three universal categories to different phenomena are not absolute, they are contextual in accordance with the relevant relations among them. For example, the sign, its object, and its interpretant only correspond respectively to 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns within their genuine triadic relation.

 




CSP: A Representamen [sign] is the First Correlate of a triadic relation, the Second Correlate being termed its Object, and the possible Third Correlate being termed its Interpretant, by which triadic relation the possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of the same triadic relation to the same Object, and for some possible Interpretant. (CP 2.242, EP 2:290, 1903)





 

CSP: I will say that a sign is anything, of whatsoever mode of being, which mediates between an object and an interpretant; since it is both determined by the object relatively to the interpretant, and determines the interpretant in reference to the object, in such wise as to cause the interpretant to be determined by the object through the mediation of this "sign." (EP 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness

[robert marty]

Helmut, List,
The question is easily answered by looking at the triadic or hexadic
classes of signs.
In the first case, only the Argument is a sign whose interpreter is a
Thirdness.
In the second case, in the absence of denominations, it suffices to list
the classes of signs that incorporate interpretants with Thirdness; these
are the six classes :
Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian -->Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian
Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian --> Secundan
Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian --> Priman
Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian --> Secundan --> Secundan
Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian -->  Secundan --> Priman
Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian --> Tertian --> Priman -->  Priman
Notations are obvious; arrows are determinations. Valid combinations result
from the application of the principle according to which :
« It is evident that a possible can determine nothing but a Possible, it is
equally so that a Necessitant; can be determined by nothing but a Necessi-
tant. Hence it follows from the Definition of a Sign that since the
Dynamoid Object determines the Immediate Object, Which determines the Sign
itself, which determines the Destinate Interpretant which determines the
Effective Interpretant which determines the Explicit Interpretant the six
trichotomies, instead of determining 729 classes of signs, as they would if
they were independent, only yield 28 classes » (Letter to Lady Welby, 1908
Dec 23)
Decadic signs are not yet defined.
Best regards,
Robert Marty
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ *



Le sam. 2 déc. 2023 à 23:05, Helmut Raulien  a écrit :

> Dear All,
>
> The interpretant, in the following sign triad of the semiosis, is the new
> sign. I have got the feeling, that in this statement there is a lack of
> explanation. How exactly does this happen? If a thirdness (interpretant)
> just so would turn into a firstness (sign), then a lot of information would
> be lost. And I think, that thirdness in general does not only apply to
> interpretation or interpretant, but also to structure. Whose structure? A
> system´s? An interpreter´s? Such actors are not often mentioned in Peircean
> semiotics, are they? Is this a blank area in semiotics? Or is semiotics
> just a subtheory, embedded in a more general theory? But then the claim,
> that everything consists of signs would be false. The phaneron would not be
> everything. Or you might say, that a sign happens in a context of other,
> superior, signs, that perform a structure for the sign, or something like
> that, but I don´t see this kind of complexity being satisfyingly handled
> anywhere. Though maybe it is, then please give a hint, where.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Helmut
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
> https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at
> https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the
> links!
> ► 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 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] interpretant and thirdness

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Helmut, List:

Assignments of Peirce's three universal categories to different phenomena
are not absolute, they are contextual in accordance with the relevant
relations among them. For example, the sign, its object, and its
interpretant only correspond respectively to 1ns, 2ns, and 3ns within their
genuine triadic relation.

CSP: A *Representamen *[sign] is the First Correlate of a triadic relation,
the Second Correlate being termed its *Object*, and the possible Third
Correlate being termed its *Interpretant*, by which triadic relation the
possible Interpretant is determined to be the First Correlate of the same
triadic relation to the same Object, and for some possible Interpretant.
(CP 2.242, EP 2:290, 1903)


CSP: I will say that a sign is anything, of whatsoever mode of being, which
mediates between an object and an interpretant; since it is both determined
by the object *relatively to the interpretant*, and determines the
interpretant *in reference to the object*, in such wise as to cause the
interpretant to be determined by the object through the mediation of this
"sign." (EP 2:410, 1907)


Accordingly, there is no "lost" information when the interpretant (3ns) in
one such genuine triadic relation subsequently *serves *as a sign (1ns) of
the same object (2ns) in another such genuine triadic relation along with
its own interpretant (3ns). Moreover, all signs correspond to
representation/mediation as 3ns vs. reaction as 2ns and quality as 1ns, yet
3ns always *involves *2ns and 1ns even though 3ns can never be *built up*
from 1ns and 2ns. That is part of the basis for these claims by Peirce.

CSP: [T]he Universe is a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's
purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities. Now every symbol
must have, organically attached to it, its Indices of Reactions and its
Icons of Qualities; and such part as these reactions and these qualities
play in an argument, that they of course play in the Universe, that
Universe being precisely an argument. (CP 5.119, EP 2:193-194, 1903)

CSP: [T]he explanation of the phenomenon lies in the fact that the entire
universe,--not merely the universe of existents, but all that wider
universe, embracing the universe of existents as a part, the universe which
we are all accustomed to refer to as "the truth,"--that all this universe
is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs. (CP
5.448n, EP 2:394, 1906)


As I have suggested on-List before, understanding the universe to be one
immense sign, a vast semiosic continuum, is consistent with Peirce's mature
"top-down" conception--the whole is not a "bottom-up" assemblage of more
basic units in the reductionist sense, it is ontologically prior to its
parts, which are indefinite unless and until they are deliberately marked
off for a purpose. Likewise, the phaneron as "all that is in any way or in
any sense present to the mind" (CP 1.284, 1905) is an undivided whole from
which we prescind predicates, hypostasize some of those predicates into
subjects, and then attribute others to those subjects by formulating
propositions--namely, perceptual judgments, "the first premisses of all our
reasonings" (CP 5.116, EP 2:191, 1903).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sat, Dec 2, 2023 at 4:05 PM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> The interpretant, in the following sign triad of the semiosis, is the new
> sign. I have got the feeling, that in this statement there is a lack of
> explanation. How exactly does this happen? If a thirdness (interpretant)
> just so would turn into a firstness (sign), then a lot of information would
> be lost. And I think, that thirdness in general does not only apply to
> interpretation or interpretant, but also to structure. Whose structure? A
> system´s? An interpreter´s? Such actors are not often mentioned in Peircean
> semiotics, are they? Is this a blank area in semiotics? Or is semiotics
> just a subtheory, embedded in a more general theory? But then the claim,
> that everything consists of signs would be false. The phaneron would not be
> everything. Or you might say, that a sign happens in a context of other,
> superior, signs, that perform a structure for the sign, or something like
> that, but I don´t see this kind of complexity being satisfyingly handled
> anywhere. Though maybe it is, then please give a hint, where.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Helmut
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT