RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.12

Jeff, I only just got round to reading MS 717, which you attached, only to discover that the passage I quoted in my comment to Lowell 3.14 today is part of it! Jungian synchronicity? Anyway, it will probably take me awhile to peruse the whole thing, as I'm still busy with the Lowells, and both

Re: Logic as semeiotic in relation to theoretical and practical psychology, was [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Maybe we can make a triad of the two logics you note -- the one I sense is foundational lodged in the mystery with rules we have yet to fully learn I see so much flux that terminology itself becomes somewhat liquid. BTW I wore coca-cola classes from childhood and was liberated from all need for

Re: Logic as semeiotic in relation to theoretical and practical psychology, was [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Stephen, list, 'Logic' has many meanings for Peirce as for all of us. In the *Commens* dictionary of Peirce's terms there are about 25 entries having 'logic' or 'logical' in them, many--but not all--concerned with formal logic. The distinction between two of these terms is of the greatest

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.14

List, We are getting close to the end of Lowell 3 - in fact 3.15 will be the last part of the transcription that I'll be posting here. But the manuscript of the third draft of Lowell 3 contains two lengthy parts that I'm not posting here (mainly because he apparently didn't use them in

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Helmut, list, You wrote: If biology is idioscopic, and semiotics is cenoscopic, then, just following the rules of linguistics, which in my understanding say that the first half of a double-word is a restriction, but not a modification, of the second half, I would say, that biosemiotics is

Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Gary, List, If biology is idioscopic, and semiotics is cenoscopic, then, just following the rules of linguistics, which in my understanding say that the first half of a double-word is a restriction, but not a modification, of the second half, I would say, that biosemiotics is cenoscopic, and

Logic as semeiotic in relation to theoretical and practical psychology, was [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Stephen, list, Stephen wrote: "I would say that when psychology functions triadically it has made strides in the direction of logic." I would instead say that the *explication* of the essential triadic nature of logic in the *theoretical* science of *logic as semeiotic* has the potential of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

John S., List: Peirce's comment about "every intelligence which can learn from experience" is from an 1896 article in *The Monist* entitled, "The Regenerated Logic." Although he was referring to the kinds of observations that are the subject matter of philosophy in general, he went on to add,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

On 1/22/2018 10:55 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: I didn’t realize that you were looking for advocacy of biosemiotics in Peirce’s writings. I don’t think he ever used the term, I was asking about the development of Peirce's thought (as shown by the content and dates of his MSS), not about the

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon - you have used those terms before- therefore, it is irrelevant that you haven't used them in the current thread. And I disagree that forbidding such terms as 'unPeircean' and 'more/less legitimate' would block 'the

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Edwina, List: Your labeling of evaluations such as "unPeircean" and "more/less legitimate" as "Gatekeeper terminology" is likewise a judgmental assertion that expresses your personal opinion. If we were to forbid all such statements from the List, then there would be very little discussion at

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

I find the issue remote from what I sense. Sorry. It seems almost a supposition which is my term for something different than what can be proved. To speak of logic seems t me to speak of what tends to good. Did Peirce believe this? I think he did. I think his explanation about inkstands reverts to

Aw: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Edwina, list, with 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. I had meant firstness of secondness of secondness and secondness of secondness of secondness. Best, Helmut   21. Januar 2018 um 21:09 Uhr Von: "Edwina Taborsky"   Helmut, list - this is far too convoluted for me to reply to very

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Gary F, list Biosemiotics isn't about the 'affirmation of the continuity of biological evolution'. And Peirce did say quite a bit about biological matters - all based around his concept of Mind as Matter. Biosemiotics is about the triadic semiosic processes taking place within

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Stephen, here’s a Peirce quote that illustrates the point Peter is making: [[ A psychologist cuts out a lobe of my brain (nihil animale me alienum puto) and then, when I find I cannot express myself, he says, “You see your faculty of language was localized in that lobe.” No doubt it was; and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Peirce may have avoided the term biowhatever and more than likely quantum also. But Peirce certainly did say things that were not merely intuitive about how things develop but which may also have enabled thngs to develop.Things for which he had no name because they did not exist. That is one way

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }- Jon - my final comment on this is that to declare that another view is 'unPeircean' or is 'more/less legitimate' is Gatekeeper terminology for it inserts a non-individual judgment. Yes, I read your full post -

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

John, OK, I didn’t realize that you were looking for advocacy of biosemiotics in Peirce’s writings. I don’t think he ever used the term, and I’m not sure how Peirce would go about advocating it, if that would take something more specific than affirmation of the continuity of biological

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Edwina, List: A gatekeeper is someone who seeks to restrict what others say and do; I have simply expressed my personal opinion, exactly the same as you. Did you even read my whole post, or just stop and react after the second sentence? Please note what I said in the last sentence, in

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

The only rule I follow after being duly notified is that I try to relate things to Peirce. Otherwise equality reigns. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > Edwina, List: > > I never have and never would set myself up

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon, list - using the term 'more legitimate' is terminology used by a Gatekeeper. After all, to declare that 'some readings of Peirce are more legitimate' is exactly the wording used by a Gatekeeper - who declares that

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Edwina, List: I never have and never would set myself up as gatekeeper to Peirce or some kind of authoritative interpreter of his writings. What I have argued in the past, but have no desire to rehash now, is that some readings of Peirce (or any other author) are more legitimate than others.