Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

John, List: As usual, the oblique criticisms expressed below are methodological rather than substantive, and ultimately seem to reflect a desire to have it both ways. JFS: Unless Peirce explicitly stated that some earlier remark was wrong, we must consider it to be compatible with his later

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Edwina, Peirce insisted that every theory of science, philosophy, or common sense is fallible.  He maintained that much of what we believe is true to the extent that we have tested it.  But he also maintained that we can never  be certain that any belief is absolutely true. He applied that

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }JAS - list 1]I feel that you are confusing my referring to a 'dynamic semiosic process' ' by which I mean an active semiosic process, which is always triadic - with the use of the word in Peirce of 'dynamical

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Edwina, List: It should go without saying for all my posts, but the following is an expression of my personal opinions based on my interpretations of Peirce's writings. Speculative grammar is the first branch of semeiotic, and I see one of its primary tasks as *conceptual *analysis. It might

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Gary F., List: GF: ... I find it as difficult to get interested in the minute semiotic analysis of it as it is for you to get interested in how the whole experiential process is embodied in the brain (or other biological quasi-mind). Understood and agreed. :-) GF: It seems to me that the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Dear colleagues, I have had hundreds of discussions with my students and colleagues, I have conducted master's thesis in several fields and Phd like any academic. Obviously most of them have exploited in their classifications the texts CP 2.254 to 2,265 formalized by me in the lattice of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Edwina, That's an important point: ET >I agree with Gary's comments - however, specifically, I don't see that the 'minute semiotic analysis' is even a semiotic analysis; it's a terminological analysis. Semiosis is a dynamic process and a focus on terms ignores this actuality. The great

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Sent: 21-Apr-20 21:15 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs Gary F., List: Thanks for posting this interesting analysis. It probably will not surprise anyone that I am responding mainly to your last statement. GF: I

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

a final cause) operates over a longer time-scale than the other two — which would imply that its mode of being “comes” both before and after them. Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt Sent: 21-Apr-20 21:15 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Gary F., List: Thanks for posting this interesting analysis. It probably will not surprise anyone that I am responding mainly to your last statement. GF: I will leave it to the reader to reconsider the signs, objects and interpretants identified by Peirce in the conversational example above,

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Orin, List: OH: For all three words above he revamped the entries and in all cases scaled back the theist assertions made in each. It seems like the other way around to me, at least for "deist." OH: The *Imperial *definition of *deist *has the phrase "one who professes no form of religion,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Orin, list, You wrote: ... Peirce's headword list is here: http://www.pragmaticism.net/peirce_cendict_wordlist.pdf Here's the Wayback Machine's image of the list of headwords for which the database contained documents at the Peirce-Wittgenstein Research Group at Université du Québec à

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Among the words that Peirce defined for the *Century Dictionary *are: deism, deist, theosophy. In each case he had the option of adopting unchanged the definition that was in the *Imperial Dictionary of the English Language, *which served as a template for the *Century, *and he did this often

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

I haven’t been following this thread (or group of threads) closely, but I noticed that in the discussion of the ‘hexad’ there’s been a call for more concrete examples, an interest in biological applications, and a question about the linearity of the “order of determination,” especially in

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John - I agree - most of us don't want to rehash our earlier arguments about these topics but I don't want to clarify. I don't think that it's Peirce's work that is controversial, with some of us preferring to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

As a Christian missionary for 30 years and a Christian pastor for about the same amount of time, one who is now a happy atheist, I consider Peirce’s religious views (“controversial” or not) to be essential to understanding him as a person, scientist, and philosopher. While I may very well

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Jon Alan, Since it proves a recurrent theme, I suggest we ought to try to find out what exactly is the meaning you attribute to the concept of God. You wrote: God as the real and independent object that determines the entire universe as a sign. -- And earlier you cited: As for scale, he

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Jon, I have no desire to rehash our earlier debates about the following issue: JAS> Accordingly, what I *have *suggested previously is that semeiotic is sufficiently robust to prompt the plausible hypothesis of God as the real and independent object that determines the entire universe as a

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Jon, John, Edwina, Auke, Daniel, List, Jon wrote: JAS: I *have *suggested previously [. . .] that semeiotic is sufficiently robust to prompt the plausible hypothesis of God as the real and independent object that determines the entire universe as a sign. I know that you disagree with this, but

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

John, Edwina, Daniel, List: Indeed, and I have never suggested any such thing, either; after all, it would wrongly imply that metaphysics comes *before *semeiotic in a proper classification of the sciences. Peirce unambiguously has it the other way around--"Metaphysics consists in the results of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Indeed. Peirce was very much opposed to many earlier philosophers because they had been theologically trained and reasoned from theology rather than logic. Dan > On Apr 17, 2020, at 10:50 AM, John F. Sowa wrote: > > Auke and Jon AS, > > I strongly agree with Auke's analysis. I would also

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John - thanks for your comment. I think that's an important point. " Many theologians have considered Peirce's semeiotic useful for analyzing theological arguments. But nobody, not even Peirce, has suggested

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Auke and Jon AS, I strongly agree with Auke's analysis.  I would also like to comment on the following point: AvB> God or the  conception of god do not deliver valid arguments in semiotics. My interest is systematical not biographical. A biographical analysis can be useful for clarifying what

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Jon Alan, I decided to insert our technical semiotic discussion in your exchange with Edwina. I noticed by the way that in 1. I at the end write normal where representative is ment. You asked: Just to be clear, are you suggesting a direct correspondence between the alpha/beta/gamma EGs and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Auke, List: AvB: .. with the bones, i.e. the technical terms and their arrangement YOU did a good job in sorting things out. Thank you, I sincerely appreciate it. AvB: I do not know whether you recognized that as we have an alpha, beta and gamma part of EG, we also have an alpha, beta and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Correction again: are of the opinion that with the bones, i.e. the technical terms and their arrangement YOU did a good job in sorting things out. > Op 16 april 2020 om 10:10 schreef a.bree...@chello.nl: > > > Jon Alan, > > I am a structural engineer, not an architect, so I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Jon Alan, I am a structural engineer, not an architect, so I specialize in bones rather than meat. :-) I noticed that and I, having studied the logical notebook and the Welby letters, are of the opinion that with the bones, i.e. the technical terms and their arrangement did a good job in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Auke, List: I am a structural engineer, not an architect, so I specialize in bones rather than meat. :-) More seriously, I have long recognized that I am much more adept at formulating abstract theories than at coming up with concrete examples. AvB: In that, i.e. 'they may nevertheless only

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Jan Alan, It seems that we differ in opinion about meat and bones. I just see more bones, no meat. Not very informative. A side issue: You wrote: Of course, there are other kinds of art that are intended to provoke thought and/or action, and my ordering (unlike Robert's) recognizes that they

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Auke, List: I have been specifically addressing sign classification using a linear order of trichotomies, which (again) I personally no longer believe is the most fruitful approach for speculative grammar. Nevertheless, here are some examples of a necessitant determining a possible. - 1903

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Jon S., How do you apply this scheme to art? it is by the fruit that one knows the tree. I don't see constraints that limit in semiotics, I see possibilies that evolve. You wrote "a neccesitant can determine ... a possible." Under what circumstances can we say that 'the' or 'a' necessitant

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Auke, List: It implies that a necessitant can determine a necessitant, an existent, or a possible; an existent can determine an existent or a possible; and a possible can only determine a possible. That is why, in the 1903 taxonomy, a symbol can be an argument, a dicent, or a rheme; an index can

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Sorry, nasty typo : But, does this imply that a Neccesitant determines a Possible? Op 14 april 2020 om 11:55 schreef a.bree...@chello.nl: Jon Alan, You wrote: "Constrains" refers to the rule of determination-- -"It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; it is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Jon Alan, You wrote: "Constrains" refers to the rule of determination-- -"It is evident that a Possible can determine nothing but a Possible; it is equally so that a Necessitant can be determined by nothing but a Necessitant" (EP 2:481). But, thus this imply that a Neccesitant determines a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Auke, List: I am not sure that I understand your objection. In my current view, the final and normal interpretants are one and the same--whatever the sign *necessarily would* signify under ideal circumstances; namely, in the ultimate opinion after infinite inquiry by an infinite community. This

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Jon wrote: In other words, the nature of the final interpretant constrains the possible natures of the dynamic and immediate interpretants, just as the nature of the dynamical object constrains the possible nature of the immediate object. Jon, That is quite some statement, I wonder whether

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Robert, List: RM: I remember reading to you that we already had this debate on the hexadic signs and that each one remained on its positions. Your memory is impressive--I did not recall our previous exchange about this, which

[PEIRCE-L] Categories at work within the signs

Jon, List I remember reading to you that we already had this debate on the hexadic signs and that each one remained on its positions. I see that you have not changed and I see that you are investing the podium according to your own concerns. In the scientific debate everything is allowed except