Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Jon S, List, What you just wrote ("that the "womb of indeterminacy" is "the original continuity which is inherent in potentiality," and habit as "a generalizing tendency" emerges from that primordial continuity") reminded me that Aristotle's notion of potentiality is more like Peirce's idea of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nature of Habit

Clark, list: “It seems to me that 1907’s famous MS 318 is pretty key to all this the more I think about it. That’s partially because he speaks of three habit-interpretants and changes how he talks of habit somewhat.” Yes! J one two three… C A B… utterer interpreter commens… esthetics

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Gary R., List: I have been tied up all day, and may have more to say later. For now, I just want to point out what Peirce wrote about continuity, potentiality, and habit in the last RLT lecture. CSP: This habit is a generalizing tendency, and as such a generalization, and as such a general,

[PEIRCE-L] Peirce archive MSS 1 to 1641 online

List, It seems that all of Peirce's manuscripts at Harvard are now viewable online at a Humboldt University site. Maybe they've put the old microfiche images online or maybe the images are recently made. Only a few (Robin Catalogue) MSS numbers seem missing.

[PEIRCE-L] Nature of Habit

On more thing before I leave for the weekend. It seems to me that 1907’s famous MS 318 is pretty key to all this the more I think about it. That’s partially because he speaks of three habit-interpretants and changes how he talks of habit somewhat. Part of the manuscript is in EP 2:398. I didn’t

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Edwina, Clark, John S, List, Clark wrote: I think Peirce has [two] categories of chance. One is discontinuous whereas the other is continuous. This ends up being important in various ways. I see a change, shall we say an evolution, in Peirce's thinking towards a much greater emphasis on

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 7, 2017, at 2:53 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > 1) You write that 'chance isn't separate from Thirdness'. I think it is. > Chance/Firstness is a basic modal category; it's not part of Thirdness. > > 2) I don't read Peirce's view as Neoplatonism ..i.e., that the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 7, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > I don't see that 'repetition depends on chance'. I think that you are > ignoring that Thirdness [the action of developing and taking habits] is > primordial and not a result of another modal category, i.e.,

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Clark, list - 1) You write that 'chance isn't separate from Thirdness'. I think it is. Chance/Firstness is a basic modal category; it's not part of Thirdness. 2) I don't read Peirce's view as Neoplatonism ..i.e., that the first principle is 'the One'. I see Peirce's first

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 7, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > "We are brought, then, to this: conformity to law exists only within a > limited range of events and even there is not perfect, for an element of pure > spontaneity or lawless originality mingles, or at least must be

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Clark, list - but the breaking up of old habits and the development of new habits are two separate actions. It could conceivably happen that the old habits might dissipate - and no 'chance' occurrences took place to enable new habits [that would be entropic ...and I posit doesn't happen that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Edwina, Gary, Clark, list, ET I'd say that our primary experience of these natural laws is indexical, in that we physically connect with the RESULTS of these laws. Intellectually analyzing them and developing symbolic constructs - is a secondary step. I agree with both sentences. And I

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Gary R - I agree with your comment re 'chance creates habit'. I don't see how this could happen. Chance enables the development of different habits. But habit-taking is primordial. My only difference is that I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Dear all, “Breaking up habits to create new habits is habit creation.” So what is chance doing, breaking up habits or creating new ones? Is the habit stable or unstable? Which habit, the broken up one or the newly created one? What is the start; a condition of disorder or a condition of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 7, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > But, as I see it, this is not at all the case. Chance may break up old > habits--and this is essential, for example, for evolution to occur Breaking up habits to create new habits is habit creation. The key point

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 6, 2017, at 12:50 PM, John Collier wrote: > > SM is statistical mechanics. I don’t recall Peirce ever discussing it, though > it was well known at his time, and proven beyond a doubt with Einstein’s ex > planation of Brownian motion in 1906. Before that many

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Icon Index Symbol

Jerry, List ... Just back from travel and it may be a while before I get back in gear, but here's a few links on how I would (and long ago did) begin to get a handle on the issue, with an eye as always to real-world practical applications:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

> On Apr 6, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > With the discussions going on in a couple of threads about semeiosis in the > physico-chemical and biological realms, a question occurred to me. What > class of Sign is a law of nature? I am not referring to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

> On Apr 6, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > I don't accept the neoDarwinian hypothesis that adaptation and evolution are > due to randomness and Natural Selection. I think that adaptation and > evolution are actions of Mind; that is, the biological systems

Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Gary F - Thanks for the quotation. I have only part of the EP2 - and those pages weren't included. I do prefer the CP collection. No- I am not assuming that the object of a metaphorical sign isn't real. I am sure that it can be/IS real. That's not my point. - which was to question

RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Edwina, you appear to be assuming that the object of a metaphorical sign cannot be real. I don’t subscribe to that assumption. For Peirce’s explanation of this point, see the passage I cited from Peirce’s Harvard Lecture 4, EP2:193-4. Since you don’t seem to use EP2, and this passage was

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Gary F - I don't quite understand your statement: "These are clearly symbols, though not conventional, and (as constituents of an argument) take the form of propositions. I think John is right to call them metaphorical, as our primary experience of these symbols is anthropomorphic"

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Jon A.S., John S., I agree with John on this point — but see further my insertion below. Gary F. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 6-Apr-17 17:52 John S., List: JFS: In summary, I believe that the term 'law of nature' is a metaphor for aspects

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John, list: I think a law refers to the continuity of a type of behaviour; i.e., among a collective, not to a rule of behaviour in one specific instantiation. That is, a law would refer to the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

On 4/6/2017 5:51 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: JFS: In summary, I believe that the term 'law of nature' is a metaphor for aspects of nature that we can only describe. Again, I am asking about those aspects of nature /themselves/, not our linguistic or mathematical descriptions of them. What