Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 4.8.2017 21:06: Kirsti, you wrote: "Also, with triads, thinking in "parts" does not do. According to my view, that is. Nor do the idea of "containing"." Instead you wrote about: " Categorical aspects (or perspectives). " But, isn´t this a kind of containing or composition? Like if you add all aspects or perspectives, you have the whole picture? Helmut, It depends on what is meant by containing or composition. And with "a whole picture". A whole picture of what? The final truth??? - Something like "better, or "good enough" would be a better way of putting the issue. What did CSP aim at? That is something to be interpreted on the ground of all his Nachlass. - To my mind he was aiming at a philosophy of science which truly works. In real life, that is. He was offering methods and tools for research. There already are billions of pictures of wheels, hammers etc. Making a composite picture of those does not help in skills of using them or making them. I find it difficult to answer your questions, Helmut, because I do not have a clear enough idea of what you are aiming at. What is the ground for you interest in CSP? What do you aim to do with the knowledge and understanding you are after? Best, Kirsti 04. August 2017 um 08:34 Uhr kirst...@saunalahti.fi Helmut, You wrote: "...eg. what would be the difference between "qualisign" and "icon". First, they are ripped off from different trichotomies (of which one is left out, by the way). Second, these present something arrived at from differing Categorical aspetcs (or perspectives). Without working out oneself what is involved in all this, it is bound to hard or even impossible to grasp what you seem to be after. Also, with triads, thinking in "parts" does not do. According to my view, that is. Nor do the idea of "containing". I have never found sign classifications of much use, even though I spent a lot of time once, long ago, with reading CSP's own writings on those issues. Existential graphs is the only part of his logic, that I have found CSP to write down that he had succeeded in developing. But still holding the firm view, that it presented only a part of Logic. Only one of the three logically necessary approaches. I have only worked out the introductory sections CSP has written on this. This work has been immensely useful. In 1980' and early 1990's I tried to find companions to form a study circe, with no success. Best, Kirsti Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 3.8.2017 22:54: > Kirsti, List, > For me both (classification and triads) was and still is complex and > hard to understand. Before I have had a more or less proper > understanding of the sign triad, I did not understand sign classes, > eg. what would be the difference between "qualisign" and "icon". > Another puzzling thing is, that a triad is a composition of categorial > parts, so an "AND"-matter. Classification means "either or" or "NAND", > but a legisign contains sinisigns and qualisigns. This is "AND", so > where is the "NAND"? The answer is, I think, that a legisign is > composed of sinisigns, which are composed of qualisigns. But > composition is just a matter different from classification. Therefore > a sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no > matter what a sini- or a legisign is composed of. > So it was incorrect of me to have written, that classification and > triads are two different topics. Instead it would be more correct to > say, that they are two different things, but to understand one of > them, you must have had understood the other. Which, of course, is not > possible (a paradoxon), so it is necessary to read about both topics > (make them one topic) to understand both. > So I agree with you having written: "Taking bits and pieces from CSP > just does not work. The "pieces" only > work in the context of his work as a whole." > Best, > Helmut > > 03. August 2017 um 10:08 Uhr > kirst...@saunalahti.fi > wrote: > Triads belog to the system of Categories, the hardest part in Peircean > philosphy to fully grasp. It is much easier to use only > classifications. > This appoach involves confining to Secondness, as if it were the > only, > or even the most important part in his philosphy. - Peirce definitely > left this road. > > By this I do not mean that classifications are useless. Quite often > they > are useful as a stepping stone in the beginning of any serious > research > relying on Peircean Categories. > > It is true that in his later life CSP started call his work > Pragmaticism, in opposition Pragmatism. But I do not agree in that > the > reason was anything like the latter being "too relativistic". The > issue > was much more complicated. Best to study CSP's later writings on the > issues involved. > > To my mind Apel ended up with many misunderstandings and > misinterpretations in his work on CSP. E.g. he relied too much on
Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology
Kirsti, you wrote: "Also, with triads, thinking in "parts" does not do. According to my view, that is. Nor do the idea of "containing"." Instead you wrote about: " Categorical aspects (or perspectives). " But, isn´t this a kind of containing or composition? Like if you add all aspects or perspectives, you have the whole picture? Best, Helmut 04. August 2017 um 08:34 Uhr kirst...@saunalahti.fi Helmut, You wrote: "...eg. what would be the difference between "qualisign" and "icon". First, they are ripped off from different trichotomies (of which one is left out, by the way). Second, these present something arrived at from differing Categorical aspetcs (or perspectives). Without working out oneself what is involved in all this, it is bound to hard or even impossible to grasp what you seem to be after. Also, with triads, thinking in "parts" does not do. According to my view, that is. Nor do the idea of "containing". I have never found sign classifications of much use, even though I spent a lot of time once, long ago, with reading CSP's own writings on those issues. Existential graphs is the only part of his logic, that I have found CSP to write down that he had succeeded in developing. But still holding the firm view, that it presented only a part of Logic. Only one of the three logically necessary approaches. I have only worked out the introductory sections CSP has written on this. This work has been immensely useful. In 1980' and early 1990's I tried to find companions to form a study circe, with no success. Best, Kirsti Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 3.8.2017 22:54: > Kirsti, List, > For me both (classification and triads) was and still is complex and > hard to understand. Before I have had a more or less proper > understanding of the sign triad, I did not understand sign classes, > eg. what would be the difference between "qualisign" and "icon". > Another puzzling thing is, that a triad is a composition of categorial > parts, so an "AND"-matter. Classification means "either or" or "NAND", > but a legisign contains sinisigns and qualisigns. This is "AND", so > where is the "NAND"? The answer is, I think, that a legisign is > composed of sinisigns, which are composed of qualisigns. But > composition is just a matter different from classification. Therefore > a sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no > matter what a sini- or a legisign is composed of. > So it was incorrect of me to have written, that classification and > triads are two different topics. Instead it would be more correct to > say, that they are two different things, but to understand one of > them, you must have had understood the other. Which, of course, is not > possible (a paradoxon), so it is necessary to read about both topics > (make them one topic) to understand both. > So I agree with you having written: "Taking bits and pieces from CSP > just does not work. The "pieces" only > work in the context of his work as a whole." > Best, > Helmut > > 03. August 2017 um 10:08 Uhr > kirst...@saunalahti.fi > wrote: > Triads belog to the system of Categories, the hardest part in Peircean > philosphy to fully grasp. It is much easier to use only > classifications. > This appoach involves confining to Secondness, as if it were the > only, > or even the most important part in his philosphy. - Peirce definitely > left this road. > > By this I do not mean that classifications are useless. Quite often > they > are useful as a stepping stone in the beginning of any serious > research > relying on Peircean Categories. > > It is true that in his later life CSP started call his work > Pragmaticism, in opposition Pragmatism. But I do not agree in that > the > reason was anything like the latter being "too relativistic". The > issue > was much more complicated. Best to study CSP's later writings on the > issues involved. > > To my mind Apel ended up with many misunderstandings and > misinterpretations in his work on CSP. E.g. he relied too much on > traditional Continental views of the hermeutic circle. > > Taking bits and pieces from CSP just does not work. The "pieces" only > work in the context of his work as a whole. > > Best, Kirsti > > Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 3.8.2017 01:12: > > List, > > Are trichotomies and triads two different topics? I think so: One > is > > classification, the other composition. "Signs" as a term, I think, > is > > more connected with classification, and "meaning" with composition. > Is > > that so? It is my impression. > > And: Is it so, that Peirce called himself a "Pragmaticist", in > > opposition to "Pragmatism", which was too relativistic for him? So > > Peirce has a connection ability towards metahysics and > transcendental > > philosophy, and maybe that is what Apel liked him for? Only my > > impression too, maybe wrong, I have not read so much. > > Best, > > Helmut > > > > 01. August 2017 um 15:45 Uhr > > kirst...@saunalahti.fi > > wrote: > > Clark understood pretty correctly
