List- I don’t see synergism as equivalent to Thirdness, for Thirdness is the
establishment of habits, ie, habitual ‘modes of being’ - which habits are
established by and within the universe in conjunction with the modes of both
Firstness and Secondness. .
Instead, synergism, or continuity,
Mike:
I do not know what you mean by "penultimate" in this context. As I have
said on the List many times before, as well as in my published work, my
understanding of synechism as applied in metaphysics is that the entire
universe is an inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities
List, Edwinia, Mike
First, thanks to JAS for his well crafted initial post and an a direct inquiry
to him if those are the only relevant citations to the intermingling of
grammatical semantics with CSP’s notion of a copulant.
I strongly suspect a deeper meaning is to be found in other
Mike list
I agree with your comments. Synechism is the functionality of Thirdness [the
becoming governed by laws} 5.4] - and isn’t the penultimate, because, just as
you say - the world requires the discrete and discontinuousness of ontological
Secondness [entropy] and also- the chance
Hi Jon,
To quibble, I see synechism and its great definer of continuity as the
guiding principle of Thirdness (as I think Peirce did, too). It can't be
elevated to the penultimate, because our operative world also requires
the discrete and discontinuous. (Enter 2nd law of thermodynamics stage
Mike:
I am glad that we agree on that point. I also agree that it is a mistake to
treat semiosis as the most fundamental aspect of Peirce's philosophy, and
that his three universal categories--firmly grounded in both the
hypothetical science of mathematics and the primal positive science of
Edwina, Gary, Jon, List,
As Peirce frequently pointed out, he had a solid understanding of all the
methods of reasoning from the ancient Greeks to the medieval Scholastics to the
methods from the Renaissance to the early 20th C.
In general, the "proper way" depends very much on the theorem
Hi Jon,
Here is a point with which I have vehement agreement with you (dare I
say I suspect Edwina does as well):
What I /can /say is that I obviously disagree with anyone who confines
semiosis to the biological realm, since I maintain with Peirce that
the entire universe is "a vast
List
I am unaware of anyone who "confines semiosis to the biological realm”!! Never
heard of such a thing! But, of course, there are many who confine semiosis to
the human mind realm - and many who reject the operation of semiosis within the
physicochemical realms.
As I’ve said - my point is
Gary, List:
It has been several years since I read *Natural Propositions*, so I will
not be able to comment on it specifically, although Stjernfelt's more
recent book includes examples like fireflies glowing and bees dancing. What
I *can *say is that I obviously disagree with anyone who confines
Gary, list
Thanks - that book however, is from ten years ago. My point is that current
research in information dynamics in the ’natural realms’ - which, very often,
doesn’t use Peircean terms but is obviously working within the same analytic
framework of morphological formation, information
Edwina, List,
ET: I’m a bit surprised by your request - since surely you are aware of
the focus in science of Peircean principles in the biological,
physic-chemical and artificial worlds.
Yes, I'm well aware of that focus and have read extensively in the
literature. Thank you, though, for
Gary R,list
I’m a bit surprised by your request - since surely you are aware of the focus
in science of Peircean principles in the biological, physic-chemical and
artificial worlds.
A few quick examples:
Homeostasis and Information Processing: Eduardo Mizraji. Biosystems 2024
February
13 matches
Mail list logo
