Helmut, list,
I have to run off to a very busy late afternoon/evening soon, but wanted to
quickly respond to your post. You wrote:
HR: I think, the presyllable "idio" has had a bad connotation to me due to
the word "idiot", which was the reason for my quibbling, but I´ve looked it
up, and it does
Gary, List,
I think, the presyllable "idio" has had a bad connotation to me due to the word "idiot", which was the reason for my quibbling, but I´ve looked it up, and it does not only mean "merely self-related", but also "special". Still, by the way you put it:
" Similarly, cenoscopic science
Helmut, list,
You wrote: "Maybe I have had the wrong concept about idioscopy: I thought
that it was observing phenomena without connecting them to cenoscopy such
as semiotics/logic."
I think you have the "observing phenomena" part of idioscopy right but, as
I understand it, not the "without conn
Gary List,
Maybe I have had the wrong concept about idioscopy: I thought that it was observing phenomena without connecting them to cenoscopy such as semiotics/logic.
Best, Helmut
22. Januar 2018 um 23:24 Uhr
Von: "Gary Richmond"
Helmut, list,
You wrote: If biology is idioscopic,
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Intentionality is a basic, indeed, I'd say THE basic component of
semiosis. ..
Intentionality is expressed in the three modes of Firstness,
Secondness and Thirdness - in all their forms, both genuine and
degenerat
Jon AS,
Thanks for the references from 1891 and 1896. That is evidence
for Peirce's thoughts about minds or quasi-minds prior to 1903.
But it would be useful to see more explicit mention of animals.
On related issues, following is an excerpt from a note that I sent
to Ontolog Forum about the ne
u see your faculty of language was localized in that lobe.” No
>>>>> doubt it was; and so, if he had filched my inkstand, I should not have
>>>>> been
>>>>> able to continue my discussion until I had got another. Yea, the very
>>>>> thoughts wo
in which a thing may be in two
>>>> places at once. On the theory that the distinction between psychical and
>>>> physical phenomena is the distinction between final and efficient
>>>> causation, it is plain enough that the inkstand and the brain-lobe
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 cenoscop
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 semi
Søren, List:
I am inclined to agree, and increasingly see Peirce's pragmaticism as a
viable "third way" between various false dichotomies posed by modern and
postmodern thought.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.Linked
Jon S, Edwina, list,
Jon wrote: " classifying biosemiotics under the special sciences does not
somehow turn it into "a special use of Peirce"; it simply recognizes that
it does not fall under (cenoscopic) philosophy, which I thought (perhaps
mistakenly) was obvious and non-controversial."
I agree
anti-psychologism
>> of Peirce and other logicians in his book *Natural Propositions*.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary f.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Peter Skagestad [mailto:skagest...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* 21-Jan-18 16:15
>> *To:* Stephen C. Rose ; Gary Fuhrma
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, "Log
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 ex
Edwina, List:
You keep attributing words to me that I have not said; please stop doing
that. For example, classifying biosemiotics under the special sciences
does not somehow turn it into "a special use of Peirce"; it simply
recognizes that it does not fall under (cenoscopic) philosophy, which I
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 wa
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 all
gestad [mailto:skagest...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 21-Jan-18 16:15
> *To:* Stephen C. Rose ; Gary Fuhrman <
> g...@gnusystems.ca>; Peirce List
> *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
>
>
>
> Stephen, list,
>
>
>
> Two comments. First, I th
ition all drawn up. This sort of thing is inevitable in the early stages of a strong logical study; for if a formal definition is attempted too soon, it will only shackle thought. ] SS p.193 ]
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 15:01
g much specifically about biosemiotics either.
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 21-Jan-18 12:24
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
On 1/21/2018 9:46 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca
phen C. Rose <mailto:stever...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 3:52 PM
To: Gary Fuhrman <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> ; Peirce List
<mailto:Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
Is Peirce's anti-psychologism reall
eirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
>
>
>
> On 1/21/2018 9:46 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
>
> > His anti-psychologism, for example, which he consistently maintained
>
> > from the 1860s on, is essentially a refusal to
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 -
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
On 1/21/2018 9:46 AM, <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
> His anti-psychologism, for example, which he consistently maintained
> from the 1860s on, is essentially a refusal to limit the applic
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 particular
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 as gatekeeper to Peirce or
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 som
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. Ins
On 1/21/2018 3:52 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
Is Peirce's anti-psychologism really putting down the brain as
a source of conscious thinking?
No, not at all.
In the 19th century, some philosophers claimed that the validity
of logic depended on human psychology. But the mainstream of
logic fro
eone else’s revised version of semiotics — and if it’s *Peircean*
> semiotics that you’re trying to understand.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
> Sent: 20-Jan-18 23:11
> To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
>
definition
is attempted too soon, it will only shackle thought. ] SS p.193 ]
Gary f.
-----Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 15:01
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
on is attempted too soon, it will only shackle thought. ] SS p.193 ]
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 15:01
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
Edwina, Gary R, Stephen, and Gary F,
formal definition all drawn up. This sort of thing is inevitable in the early stages of a strong logical study; for if a formal definition is attempted too soon, it will only shackle thought. ] SS p.193 ]
Gary f.
-Original Message-----
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-
ing a formal definition all drawn up. This sort of thing is inevitable in the early stages of a strong logical study; for if a formal definition is attempted too soon, it will only shackle thought. ] SS p.193 ]
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John,list
I think the evidence for Peirce considering that semiosis is
operative in all realms - the physical-chemical, the biological and
the human conceptual, is in his many references to 'Mind as Matter'
[6.277
On 1/21/2018 9:46 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
His anti-psychologism, for example, which he consistently maintained
from the 1860s on, is essentially a refusal to limit the application of
logical principles to what goes on in /human/ minds or brains.
But advocating anti-psychologism is indepe
of
semiotics — and if it’s Peircean semiotics that you’re trying
to understand.
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 23:11
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
that you’re trying to understand.
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 23:11
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
On 1/20/2018 4:54 PM, <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca
, for anyone trying to understand
Peirce’s semiotic. It virtually robs the sign of its life, its
power to determine.
Gary f.
From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 23:39
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.
lmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de <mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de> ]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 17:34
To: g...@gnusystems.ca <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca>
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
Gary, List
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de [2]]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 17:34
To: g...@gnusystems.ca [3]
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [4]
Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
Gary, List,
I have made up a way of seeing "sign" as synonym
ruth is that I went wrong from not having
a formal definition all drawn up. This sort of thing is inevitable in
the early stages of a strong logical study; for if a formal definition
is attempted too soon, it will only shackle thought. ] SS p.193 ]
Gary f.
-----Original Message---
mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca>
*Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
*Subject:* Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
Gary, List,
I have made up a way of seeing "sign" as synonym with
"representamen": A sign consisting of
2018 18:34
Aan: Peirce-L
Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
John, Edwina, list,
I've nothing to add at the moment, I too completely agree with the thrust of
John's post. Let's hope that some of those untranscribed manuscripts will one
day yiel
oad word in almost the exact
> sense of the scientific definition. … I formerly preferred the term
> *representamen*. But there was no need of this horrid long word. … The
> truth is that I went wrong from not having a formal definition all drawn
> up. This sort of thing is inevitable in
entific definition. … I formerly preferred the term
> representamen. But there was no need of this horrid long word. … The
> truth is that I went wrong from not having a formal definition all drawn
> up. This sort of thing is inevitable in the early stages of a strong
> logical stud
On 1/20/2018 4:54 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
What change in terminology are you referring to?
I was thinking about the following point:
Gary F
Peircean semiotics is naturally associated with a notion of “sign”
which is not limited to human use of signs; but the Lowell lectures
may represen
ry f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 15:01
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
Edwina, Gary R, Stephen, and Gary F,
Edwina
> I emphasize that semio
ly stages of a strong logical study; for if a formal definition is
attempted too soon, it will only shackle thought. ] SS p.193 ]
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 15:01
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
it will only shackle thought. ] SS p.193 ]
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 15:01
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
Edwina, Gary R, Stephen, and Gary F,
Edwina
> I emphasi
o soon, it will
> only shackle thought. ] SS p.193 ]
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
> Sent: 20-Jan-18 15:01
> To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lec
tages of a strong logical study; for if a formal definition is
attempted too soon, it will only shackle thought. ] SS p.193 ]
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 15:01
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (
Edwina, Gary R, Stephen, and Gary F,
Edwina
I emphasize that semiosis is operative not merely in the more complex
or larger-brain animals, but in all matter, from the smallest micro
bacterium to the plant world to the animal world.
Yes. I like to quote the biologist Lynn Margulis, who devoted
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 11:20
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
S
.
-Original
Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 11:20
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Biosem
f.
-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 11:20
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
Edwina and Gary R,
I changed the subject line to biosemiosis in order to emphasize t
ssage-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 20-Jan-18 11:20
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12
Edwina and Gary R,
I changed the subject line to biosemiosis in order to emphasize that Peirce had
intended semiosis to cover the full
Here's something
http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2010/05/12/between-whitehead-peirce/
amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Gary Richmond
wrote:
> John, Edwina, list,
>
> I've nothing to add at the moment, I too completely agree with the thrust
> of John's post. Let's ho
John, Edwina, list,
I've nothing to add at the moment, I too completely agree with the thrust
of John's post. Let's hope that some of those untranscribed manuscripts
will one day yield more relevant material on this topic.
In reading Whitehead years ago I too noted many similarities to Peirce's
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
Thank you so much for your perceptive and articulate post. Of course
- I strongly agree.
And I emphasize that semiosis is operative not merely in the more
complex or larger-brain animals, but i
Edwina and Gary R,
I changed the subject line to biosemiosis in order to emphasize that
Peirce had intended semiosis to cover the full realm of all living
things. Note what he wrote in a letter to Lady Welby:
CSP, MS 463 (1908)
I define a Sign as anything which is so determined by something el
62 matches
Mail list logo
