Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology
Helmut, Todays systems theories were not known by Peirce. Thus he dis not use the TERM (which is just a name for a theoretical concept) in the sense (meaning) it is used nowadays. I have studied some early cybernetics, then Bertallanffy and Luhman in more detail. But I left keeping up with this tract, except in a most superficial way. I think you may be after something truly important. Of course there are others with similar aims. Best wishes, Kirsti kirst...@saunalahti.fi kirjoitti 6.8.2017 10:41: Helmut, That is good to know. Thanks. Kirsti Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 5.8.2017 22:09: Kirsti, you wrote: "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?" I want to combine CSP with systems theory. I think, there might come out a triadic systems theory this way. Peirce did not write much about systems, I think, and existing systems theories are not based on CSP. Stanley N. Salthe wrote about systems hierarchies: "Salthe´12Axiomathes". In this paper he wrote, that there are two kinds of systems hierarchies: Composition and subsumption. The latter is, or includes, classification. Therefore I am interested in the ways both (composition and classification) play a role in CSP´s theory of signs. Best, Helmut 05. August 2017 um 12:44 Uhr kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: 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-
Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology
Helmut, That is good to know. Thanks. Kirsti Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 5.8.2017 22:09: Kirsti, you wrote: "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?" I want to combine CSP with systems theory. I think, there might come out a triadic systems theory this way. Peirce did not write much about systems, I think, and existing systems theories are not based on CSP. Stanley N. Salthe wrote about systems hierarchies: "Salthe´12Axiomathes". In this paper he wrote, that there are two kinds of systems hierarchies: Composition and subsumption. The latter is, or includes, classification. Therefore I am interested in the ways both (composition and classification) play a role in CSP´s theory of signs. Best, Helmut 05. August 2017 um 12:44 Uhr kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: 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
Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology
Kirsti, you wrote: "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?" I want to combine CSP with systems theory. I think, there might come out a triadic systems theory this way. Peirce did not write much about systems, I think, and existing systems theories are not based on CSP. Stanley N. Salthe wrote about systems hierarchies: "Salthe´12Axiomathes". In this paper he wrote, that there are two kinds of systems hierarchies: Composition and subsumption. The latter is, or includes, classification. Therefore I am interested in the ways both (composition and classification) play a role in CSP´s theory of signs. Best, Helmut 05. August 2017 um 12:44 Uhr kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: 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 > >
