Gary R, Gary F, list,
From my cherry-picking readings in the orchard of Peirce, I gathered the
impression that
Every phenomenon has three aspects he called (081314-1)
Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness.
If this impression of mine is true, why can't phaneron itself have these
Gary,
GR: I would maintain that, and apart from analysis, in our phenomenological
experience those several qualities are felt as distinct.
GF: I would agree with that. They are felt as distinct when the analysis is
not under conscious control, as the percept itself is not.
Gary, all,
Gary F. wrote:
But phaneroscopy is looking for the elements of the phaneron, not the
elements of experience, and certainly not the elements of *human* experience
only. I can well believe that the only way to do this scientifically (i.e.
communally) is by way of iconoscopy, or
John, you wrote,
I think you would have to agree that experiencing firsts is at least very
difficult and something that we do not usually do. In particular, because of
this, they cannot be the ground of other experiences. If so, then this is
the point I have been trying to make.
I think
To the extent that I understand Firsts as originating in feelings (derived
I infer from some effort to sense what is coming up in one's
consciousness, having willed to seek to plumb it, it seems to me that a
First begins with that feeling and that it is then named with one or more
terms. For
Gary, John, list,
GR: Although I agree that Firstness (rather, any given First as quality or
character) does not admit of discreteness or plurality, I'm not so certain
that we can't really speak of 'firsts' in the plural. Doesn't it happen
that within a moment of a single experience that
Gary F, list,
I'm not at all convinced of the following.
GF: Speaking both for my own phaneroscopy and for my understanding of
Peirce's, I would say that the redness, the roundness, the coolness and the
solidity of the apple are all constituents of the single feeling which is
the experience of
: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the
basis for
To: Gary Richmond
gary.richm...@gmail.com
Mensaje original
Asunto: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis
for
Fecha: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 15:17:22 -0300
De: Claudio Guerri
claudiogue
:* Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
*To:* John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za
*Cc:* Peirce List Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
*Sent:* Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:30 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the
basis for
Seems to me that we do have direct experience
with.
John
*From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
*Sent:* August 3, 2014 10:00 PM
*To:* Stephen C. Rose; John Collier
*Cc:* Peirce List
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the
basis for
Stephen- I think John and you are talking about different
: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za]
Sent: 3-Aug-14 1:40 PM
To: Peirce List
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis
for
Stephen,
It seems to me if you are aware of something as distinct from something
else, irrespective of if you put a word
:40 PM
To: Peirce List
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis
for
Stephen,
It seems to me if you are aware of something as distinct from something
else, irrespective of if you put a word to it, then it is not a pure
first.
If you are not aware
. Rosemailto:stever...@gmail.com
To: John Colliermailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za
Cc: Peirce Listmailto:Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for
Seems to me that we do have direct experience no matter how vague it may
At 08:00 PM 2014-08-03, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
The notion of how signs get to their editing is clearly ultimately a
matter of theory. But the theory can stipulate that there is the
penumbra which I infer from direct experience.
I don't think you entitled to do this. Do you really think I
John wrote:
I am not arguing that pure firsts are not real;(6231-1)
I am arguing that they are not what we experience
directly.
Let me expose my ignorance. Is this what is known as constructive realism?
With all the bet.
Sung
At 08:00 PM 2014-08-03, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
The
.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za
To: Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
Cc: Peirce List Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis
for
At 08:00 PM 2014
Cc: Peirce List
Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for
Seems to me that we do have direct experience no matter how vague it may
seem. Certainly something precedes words. Words do not emerge of their own
accord. I
On Aug 3, 2014, at 2:09 PM, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote:
At 08:00 PM 2014-08-03, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
The notion of how signs get to their editing is clearly ultimately a matter
of theory. But the theory can stipulate that there is the penumbra which I
infer from direct
*Cc:* Peirce List Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
*Sent:* Sunday, August 03, 2014 2:30 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the
basis for
Seems to me that we do have direct experience no matter how vague it may
seem. Certainly something precedes words. Words do
Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's original works,
rather than, as you do, relying on secondary writings about Peirce and on
cherry-quotes of his works. You wrote:
Written words are representamens and spoken(073114-7)
(and understood) words are signs.
On Jul 31, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote:
Yes. That is what I am saying, and I too distinguish between material
process of semiotics and semiotics in general. My working hypothesis is
that
Physics of words/signs is necessary but (073114-2)
[mailto:cl...@lextek.com]
Sendt: 31. juli 2014 20:11
Til: Sungchul Ji; Peirce-L
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for
On Jul 31, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Sungchul Ji
s...@rci.rutgers.edumailto:s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote:
Yes. That is what I am saying, and I too distinguish
Edwina wrote (073114-1):
Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's (073114-1)
original works, rather than, as you do, relying on secondary
writings about Peirce and on cherry-quotes of his works.
You have been repeating this admonition whenever you want to criticize my
views
(but one that we have not discussed much). But I think you are
correct in saying that Peirce did not do any work on this aspect of sign
production.
Best
Søren
Fra: Clark Goble
[
mailto:cl...@lextek.com]
Sendt: 31. juli 2014 20:11
Til: Sungchul Ji; Peirce-L
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re
in saying that Peirce did not do any work on this aspect of sign
production.
Best
Søren
Fra: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com]
Sendt: 31. juli 2014 20:11
Til: Sungchul Ji; Peirce-L
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis
On Jul 31, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Søren Brier sb@cbs.dk wrote:
My I add a few thoughts? I agree that sign are reals, but when they manifests
as tokens their Secondness must enter the world of physics and thermodynamics
must apply. It is work to make signs emerge in non-verbal
the Forms are
actually existentially real on their own.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Stephen C. Rose
To: Edwina Taborsky ; Peirce List
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for
Peirce
: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis
for
Edwina wrote (073114-1):
Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's (073114-1)
original works, rather than, as you do, relying on secondary
writings about Peirce
...@primus.ca
Cc: Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu; Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com;
Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:01 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis
for
Edwina wrote (073114-1):
Sung, it would
]
Sent: July 31, 2014 11:25 PM
To: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for
John, in order to “make sense” (i.e. to convey any information in the Peircean
sense), it must function both iconically and indexically, as a dicisign. A
legisign has
.
John
*From:* Gary Fuhrman [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca]
*Sent:* July 31, 2014 11:25 PM
*To:* 'Peirce-L'
*Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the
basis for
John, in order to make sense (i.e. to convey any information in the
Peircean sense), it must function
On Jul 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote:
Do you deny that DNA is matter ? Does it not represent an organism?
Do you deny that
“Semiosis is a material process enabled by the action of the(073114-6)
irreducible triad of object, representamen and
I'll reply to a few comments; thanks for your input.
- Original Message -
From: Clark Goble
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for
1) CLARK: Lots of comments so I’ll just pick a few
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com wrote:
It is rather common to assume some space/time substrate with extension as a
necessary substrate for any property. So much so that it’s rather common for
many from the scientific community to even recognize it as an
On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca wrote:
I agree that the laws are generals and not material; they couldn't be
general AND material, for materiality is existentially local and particular.
However, following Aristotle, I consider that the general law (Form)
Clark wrote:
But there can be signs of mind and not matter. (073114-1)
Thats more the issue Im getting at.
Can there be any signs of mind independent of matter or unsupported by
material mechanisms of some sort ?
If so, what would be an example of that ?
With all the best.
Sung
6.220 is from the Logic of Events, 1898- and that section refers, as John was
talking about, to the nature of potentiality.
- Original Message -
From: Clark Goble
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics
On Jul 29, 2014, at 1:44 AM, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote:
I made the relevant distinctions in a book chapter in 1990,
Intrinsic Information (1990)
but I had to introduce some new concepts and definitions to the usual
thermodynamic ones. The lack of those has caused multiple
John wrote:
I should have said as well that my student, Scott Muller, (073014-1)
was able to prove that the information content I refer to
is unique. He uses group theory following he argument I made
that information originates in symmetry breaking. His book
is Asymmetry: The Foundation of
One brief last point. I think Peirce’s distinctions between token, type, and
tone are rather helpful here and should be kept in mind. Of course the
token/type distinction in particular can be blurry but I’m not sure that’s
relevant to the discussion at hand.
My sense is that the
At 11:28 PM 2014-07-28, Clark Goble wrote:
(Sorry for any repeats - I
accidentally sent several emails from the wrong account so they didnt
make it to the list)
On Jul 26, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Sungchul Ji
s...@rci.rutgers.edu
wrote:
Peircean scholars and
philosophers in general seem to find it
Dear Clark,
Thanks for your response.
What you say below is correct if we accept the meanings of dissipative
and equilibrium structures as you define them in your mind, and this
applies to Benjamin's previous response as well.
But the point I was making in my admittedly provocative email was
(Sorry for any repeats - I accidentally sent several emails from the wrong
account so they didn’t make it to the list)
On Jul 26, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote:
Peircean scholars and philosophers in general seem to find it difficult
(or trivial) to distinguish
On Jul 25, 2014, at 8:01 PM, Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu wrote:
As you know, Prigogine (1917-2003) divided all structures in the Universe
into two classes equilibrium structures (ES) and dissipative structures
(DS) [1, 2]. ESs do not but DSs do need to dissipate free energy for them
44 matches
Mail list logo
