John, list,
How do you classify biosemiotic using your scheme?
If there is no room for it, then what good is the classification?
Thanks,
Jerry R
On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 10:05 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Edwina and Jon AS,
>
> ET
>
>> My concern is that this list seems to focus almost
Edwina and Jon AS,
ET
My concern is that this list seems to focus almost exclusively
on debates about terminology and classification of research areas,
and doesn't venture outside the seminar room into the mud and dirt
of the real matter-as-mind world.
Peirce had a long career in science
Edwina, Helmut, List:
I could comment on what I consider to be several fundamental
misunderstandings throughout this exchange, but Gary R. already pointed out
a few of them; so instead, I will simply take the opportunity to illustrate
(and hopefully clarify further) why I am now advocating the
Helmut, you wrote:
"I think, a specific dog is not the DO of the rheme, but of the
dicent the rheme is part of, that would be Buster in "Buster is a
dog"."
Yes - you have to process the Rhematic Iconic Qualisign further to
get the specifics, but - the FACT that a rhematic
Edwina, list,
I think I agree that the extension is not the DO. I also agree, that, if you look very closely at a rheme, it has no object, is just a feeling, like what Peirce called "primisense".
If you look less closely, but say that rheme is the complete sign, then I would say, that
Helmut, list:
My reference to Platonism was when you suggested that the extension
"all existing dogs" would be the DO". I would think that a specific
dog is the DO.
The rhematic iconic qualisign is a pure feeling. In your example of,
I suppose, a dog being in the room
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list:
Yes, I wrote: "And therefore, in a sense, no DO or even IO. One must
even wonder if it is a Sign, that triad of O-R-I?! Or is it the
"nothing of boundless freedom', or potentiality' [6.219] that is
Edwina, list,
I think, that to say the idea transported by the rheme "dog", resp. "is a dog" is not platonic, because in this context "idea" is a secondary thing, out of reflexion, intuition, in any case out of the memory. For Platon, "idea" however had the reverse meaning: Not a secondary,
Edwina, list,
In recent posts you've suggested that a Rheme is pure 1ns despite the fact
that Peirce held that there was no such thing as pure 1ns even in
phenomenology let alone semeiotic. Indeed, when one does turn to semeiotic,
he held that there isn't *even* a pure icon, that such signs may
Helmut, list
It depends on what one means by the term 'rheme'. As I understand
it, just the term itself refers to the Interpretant in a mode of
Firstness. Another meaning is 'a proposition with the subject place
left blank'. In both outlines, the key thing is that are no relations
-
John S., List:
Thank you for this helpful explanation of your perspective on all of this.
Here is a longer excerpt from the beginning of that 1894 passage.
CSP: The *list of categories* ... is a table of conceptions drawn from the
logical analysis of thought and regarded as applicable to being.
Edwina, list,
is a rheme pure firstness, so pure feeling, or is it firstness of thirdness, if one might say, that relation (or reference) to an interpretant is thirdness? So, if it was the quality of mediation, the aroused feeling would adress something. Like, if the rheme is the word "dog", or
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
Exactly - 'all possible theories about anything [ET: and I'd add
everything] are related". And yes "all possible modes of inquiry are
interrelated".
And this means, I suggest, that we can't
On 9/13/2018 11:10 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
What's the point of these seminar-room analyses of terminology, of
classification of areas of study? Surely it can't mean that one is
barred from studying X within the area of Y because X is strictly
classified in another area of re
It shows how
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
Thanks for your, as usual, clear and reasoned outline. But I have a
question.
What's the point of these seminar-room analyses of terminology, of
classification of areas of study? Surely it
Jon AS, Auke, and Jeff BD,
Both subject lines are closely related. For modes of being,
I'll quote Bertrand Russell, whom I rarely cite:
Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know
what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.
That is a dramatic way
16 matches
Mail list logo
