Edwina, List:
Our very different readings of Peirce and models of semiosis are
manifesting again, so I will leave it at that, with two exceptions.
First, Peirce *did not* say that "the whole universe is composed of
signs." I assume that you are alluding to this long sentence, which should
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon
1] Mind, which is to say, Thirdness, is operative in 6 of the ten
sign classes. Of these 6, there are only 3 that also use the Symbolic
Relation. Therefore - my view is that only 3 of the ten refer to
human
Edwina, List:
1. What exactly are you claiming that I deny? I have repeatedly quoted CP
4.551 (crystals and bees), while you are the one who confines Symbols and
Arguments to human conceptual semiosis. What I *have *pointed out is that
Peirce *did not* treat triadic semoisis as the *only *kind
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - thanks for a wonderful post as moderator. I don't know how
to describe it - but- it was 'reasonable and moderate'. I have two
comments:
1] Since Peirce considered that Mind is operative in all of nature,
Gary R., List:
I honestly did try to pause at a couple of points--after posting the
initial list of quotes, and then after posting my own summaries of them--to
give others a chance to comment, but my eagerness to put my ideas out there
and get feedback on them eventually got the best of me. I
Helmut ...
Inquiry Driven Systems ??? Part 4 ??? The Problem of Reflection
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Inquiry_Driven_Systems_:_Part_4#The_Problem_of_Reflection
On 2/21/2018 5:10 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jerry,
when a mirror appears in the field of sight, then the eye can see
Nice response -- here's mine
Do not pretend to know my name
The words I use are weak and lame
They cannot tell from whence they came
They don’t pretend to know my name
+
There is no reason to say more
I do not know what this is for
There is no why there’s no wherefore
Why is there reason
Dear Helmut,
You said,
All that is a reflection in another mirror, a bit further away. Solipsism
is assuming an endless series of mirrors behind mirrors. Sounds like hell.
Can you show a way out..
I would presume based on our past experiences that you wouldn’t care for me
to show you a way
Jerry,
when a mirror appears in the field of sight, then the eye can see itself. Its owner may ask him/herself: What is behind that mirror? But the mirror is there, so behind it is also what is behind the eye. But the world too. So it is the (eye-owner´s) world, and the owner of the world, being
Dear list,
Speaking of the person who sees the vase, who happens to be a Quasi-mind:
*5.6 *
*The limits of my language** mean the limits of my world.*
*5.61*
Logic fills the world: the limits of the world are also its limits.
We cannot therefore say in logic: This and this
Edwina, List:
1. A hypothesis is not intended to be an argument. However, your point
about providing multiple terms for the same concept is well-taken. With
that in mind, I now see *three *interpretive possibilities for Peirce's
statement, "Such perfect sign is a quasi-mind. It is the sheet
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon -
1. All I can say is that your definitions are circular. You repeat
that 'a perfect mind= a quasi-mind= the sheet of assertion of the EG.
This, frankly, is not an argument; it is not enlightening; it
Edwina, List:
1. We can say two things for sure based on that straightforward pair of
sentences by Peirce--first, that a perfect Sign, whatever else it might be,
is a Quasi-mind; and second, that the Sheet of Assertion of Existential
Graphs is a perfect Sign. We also know, from various other
Peircers,
I just got reminded of an earlier blog post that more or less fits here.
It links to the bibliography I had in hand and mind when I went back to
graduate school in systems engineering to synthesize all the unfinished
projects I had been accumulating over the years and dedicated myself
14 matches
Mail list logo
