RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jeff, list, Thanks for the positive response, Jeff! As for where the discussion goes from here, that's up to you and whoever else wants to follow up on specific ideas in it. A closer look at determination and reference would certainly be worthwhile. Another matter that seems to me closely

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: g...@gnusystems.ca [g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 3:34 AM To: 'PEIRCE-L' Subject: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Peirceans, It’s been months since

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jeff, I’ll take a crack at it, inserting my answers after your questions. Gary f. -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu] Sent: 4-Jan-16 19:37 Hello, I'd like to follow up on the post that Gary F. made some weeks back about the first

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

8 523-8354 From: g...@gnusystems.ca [g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 8:21 AM To: 'PEIRCE-L' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: signs, correlates, and triadic relations List, Recent discussions have made it clear to me that some readers of Peirce

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com] Sent: Tuesday, 05 January 2016 6:07 AM To: John Collier; Peirce List Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary F, list, As I said, I'll leave you the last (substantive) word in these two matters in this thread. So, as your last word included questions, I'd suggest that we move the discussion off-list. We seem to be talking past each other and, again, that may be (1) because our purposes are different

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Edwina, John, Jon, Gary R., List, Edwina says that "A dyad operates within two existentialities." I will agree with her suggestion that a dyadic relation between two existing individuals is, for Peirce, a kind paradigm case of a genuinely dyadic relation that can be considered in abstraction

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

t; > Edwina. > > - Original Message - > *From:* Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> > *To:* PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 29, 2015 8:02 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > Edwina, >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 29, 2015 4:34 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > Hi Matt. > > I agree that "icon" can be a triadic sign if there is the object it refers > to and the intepretant it determin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwina, You say: " . . . the 9 Relations are not dyads . . ." (122915-1) I say: " The 9 Relations are dyadic relations, not triadic ones." (1229151-2) I think yo

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

substantive. I strongly reject your mechanical reductionism. Edwina - Original Message - From: Sungchul Ji To: PEIRCE-L Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 6:47 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Gary R, Matt, Edwina, Jon A, John C, List

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Sung: Again, the bullet-hole is ONLY a (necessarily triadic) sign because it has immediate (possible) and final (would-be) interpretants. The absence of a dynamical (actual) interpretant does not somehow render it dyadic. The nine terms are certainly signs--rhematic symbols, I suppose--but no

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Peirce's "there were" means 'existent'. In the past, here, I've spoken of the "potential interpretant". In the hypothetical science that mathematics is, a pencil-lead streak forming a (rough but acceptable) circle signifies the hypothetical object of a perfect circle. In these cases the signs

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Matt - I think it was written in 1895. - Original Message - From: Matt Faunce To: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 5:56 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations On 12/29/15 5:40 PM, Matt Faunce wrote: What year was CP 1.303

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

they are conceptually > substantive. I strongly reject your mechanical reductionism. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> > *To:* PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 29, 2015 6:47 PM > *Subje

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

ber 29, 2015 8:50 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwina, You wrote: "Sung - how many times do I have to repeat that my view is that the Relations are not dyads, (122915-1) are not dyadic relations, but are par

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jon S, this is similar to a problem I had in another thread where Clark Gobel said that the long-run is a regulative principle that doesn't need to be actualized. I still have a problem with it. I need to spend some time working on fleshing out a concise explanation of the problem I see. Matt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jon, You wrote: " . . . the nine "types" (A) are really just nine TERMS that name specific (122915-1) characteristics (B) . . ." (letters added) I agree. I wrote about it in [biosemiotics:46] dated 12/26/2015. You can check it out. But what I am saying is in addition to what you

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Edwina, List: In Peirce's terms, would it not be right to say that the representamen, object, and interpretant need not EXIST at all? A qualisign or legisign does not exist unless and until it is embodied, but we can still talk about it as a REAL triadic sign apart from any such particular

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

st.iupui.edu Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2015 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Peirce's "there were" means 'existent'. In the past, here, I've spoken of the "potential interpretant". In the hypothetical science that mathematics is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jon, list, Well, and succinctly said! I will, however, continue to employ the term 'parameters' rather than 'terms' for the nine 'characteristics' of signs since 'terms' in that context seems far too general to get at their function: "The three trichotomies of Signs result together in dividing

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

Sung, List: Please see my reply in the other thread. An index is still always triadic; it has immediate (possible) and final/normal (would-be) interpretants, even if it never produces a dynamic (actual) interpretant. Regards, Jon S. (not Jon A., since that would be Jon Awbrey) On Tue, Dec 29,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Hi Matt. I agree that "icon" can be a triadic sign if there is the object it refers to and the intepretant it determines on its interpreter, whether here and now, or sometime in the future. In this sense, all of the 9 types of signs are triadic signs as I have been advocating against Edwina's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

John Collier > > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > *From:* sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] *On > Behalf Of *Sungchul Ji > *Sent:* Tuesday, 29 December 2015 2:34 PM > *To:* PEIRCE-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: sig

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Sung, List: Again, the nine "types" are really just nine TERMS that name specific characteristics within the ten CLASSES of signs. For example, an icon is also a rheme, and either a qualisign, sinsign, or legisign; i.e., three of the ten classes correspond to icons. But no sign is ONLY an icon;

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jon A, List, Here is one quotation of Pierce cited in Charles Peirce's Guess at the Riddle (K. Sheriff, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1994): "A sinsign may be index or icon. As index it is 'a sign which would, at once, (122915-1) lose the chracter wich makes it a sign if

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Matt: Thanks for the longer excerpt, which I was just finding myself. Sung: In Peirce's example, the bullet-hole is a sign of the shot that caused it, even if no one ever attributes it as such. Does this make it dyadic, rather than triadic? I do not believe so, at least not according to my

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Hi Jon, You wrote: "Every sign is either a qualisign, a sinsign, or a dicisign; . . . " (122915-1) Did you mean to say "legisign: instead of "dicisign" ? It is my understanding that "dicisign" is the interpretan of a sinsign. "Please indicate where in Peirce's

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Sung, List: Yes, I meant legisign not dicisign. Thanks for the correction. You asserted that it is "non-Peircean" to think that something non-triadic CANNOT be a sign. If this is true, then Peirce's writings must identify something non-triadic that CAN be a sign. I asked you to provide such a

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

t going to think that through right now. John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier FROM: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com] SENT: Monday, 28 December 2015 9:51 PM TO: Peirce List CC: John Collier; Gary Richmond SUBJECT: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, c

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

t.iupui.edu Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 10:28 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity Edwina, List: Is it not the case, at least according to Peirce, that the interpretant-object relation is necessari

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

na - Original Message - From: John Collier To: Edwina Taborsky ; Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 7:45 AM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwina, List, I worry a bit about the idea that there are thre

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

as I might have in my previous posts on this issue. Edwina is right that >> the relata to the representamen can vary in kind (but across different >> triads), which does suggest individuation, but I would argue that on my >> account of how Edwina’s (and other) relations imp

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

s of triadic semiotic relations. John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Sunday, 27 December 2015 4:24 PM To: Gary Richmond; Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations I agree w

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

of how Edwina’s (and other) relations implied by the triad fir > together all we need to maintain this type difference is a difference in > types of triadic semiotic relations. > > John Collier > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > *From:* Edwina Tabors

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

[mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 29 December 2015 6:17 AM To: John Collier Cc: Edwina Taborsky; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity John, List: Well, the passage that I quoted

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

Edwina, List: Is it not the case, at least according to Peirce, that the interpretant-object relation is necessarily the same as the representamen-object relation? If so, then there is no need for a separate trichotomy to characterize it. "A Sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

. John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 29 December 2015 5:28 AM To: Edwina Taborsky; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Sung, List: The nine terms that you list are not really TYPES of signs; rather, each one is a label for a single ASPECT of a given sign. Every sign is either a qualisign, a sinsign, or a dicisign; every sign is either an icon, an index, or a symbol; and every sign is either a rheme, a dicent, or

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

hm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, 29 December 2015 5:28 AM > *To:* Edwina Taborsky; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - > meta-languages and propositions of triadicity > > > > Edwina, List: > > > > Is it n

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

; *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2015 9:02 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > Gary F. list, > > Gary wrote: > > I think you m

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary R, Having read your subsequent message, I’m looking forward in the new year to further explication of your schema of the ten classes of signs. So I think I’ll wrap up this thread with a few questions that I hope your new thread on the subject will answer. Mostly I’m just asking for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary R, Gary F, Edwina, Jeff, List, You wrote: *GF*: I don’t see why you prefer the term “parameters” to Peirce’s term “trichotomies." *GR*: For one thing, there are so many 'trichotomies' in Peirce's semiotic, and very, very many more in his mathematics, science and philosophy (Peirce even

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary F, list, Yes, it appears that we continue to disagree on this matter of terminology, and especially since I don't believe it is merely a matter of our possibly different analytical purposes, although that is no doubt part of it and may even be at the heart of it. For now I'll just comment

Re: revised RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary F, list, Gary, since I'm caught up in holiday activities, end of the year tasks and errands, while at the same time preparing to vacate my Village apartment and move up to Harlem for about a week, I will not be able to respond to this revised post--my earlier response to your, then, not

revised RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Sorry, folks, I was called away to domestic duties before I finished proofreading that last post properly, but sent it anyway. Here’s a corrected version, which should replace the earlier one. —gary f. Gary R, I guess we will have to disagree on these terminological issues. I have

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary R, I guess we will have to disagree on these terminological issues. I have every reason to believe that Peirce’s choice of terms in his “Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations” is as careful and exact as it is in the rest of the 1903 Syllabus, and for that matter as exact as

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Resuming the close examination of Peirce’s “Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations”, we move on to the second trichotomy, which divides signs “according as the relation of the sign to its object consists in the sign's having some character in itself, or in some existential relation to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary F. list, Gary wrote: I think you may be glossing over some important terminological considerations here, Gary. They may not seem to you important or even relevant to your present inquiry here--which has come to feel like a kind of slow read of portions of NDTR--but I think that there are

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

t; history. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> > *To:* colli...@ukzn.ac.za > *Cc:* Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> ; PEIRCE-L > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2015 5:40 PM >

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

nt: Sunday, December 20, 2015 7:41 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwina, Helmut, John, Gary R, List, You wrote: "Helmut - I can see the value of using your term of '9 types of representamen relations'. (122015

FW: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

' Subject: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Helmut, That is pretty close to my understanding, but I definitely would not refer to the “whole triadic sign” as a composition of three relations. That would suggest that a decomposition is possible, but it is not, according

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

e has experimental consequences.    John   Sent from my Samsung device Original message From: Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> Date: 20/12/2015 14:04 (GMT+02:00) To: PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadi

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

od reason why Peirce didn't use different names. There is no need to. This is quite different from the baryon-quark case, where the difference has experimental consequences.    John   Sent from my Samsung device Original message -------- From: Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> Date

Aw: FW: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

But forgot. I see that Helmut has addressed my concern in a post to the list that crossed mine to him.   John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier   From: John Collier Sent: Monday, 21 December 2015 01:36 To: 'Helmut Raulien' Subject: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, co

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

is also a Relation, a depth relation, with its history. Edwina - Original Message - From: Helmut Raulien To: colli...@ukzn.ac.za Cc: Sungchul Ji ; PEIRCE-L Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 5:40 PM Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

gateway -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu] Sent: 19-Dec-15 13:33 To: 'PEIRCE-L' <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Hello Gary F., List, In MS 7, Peirce says: "Secon

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

perceptual judgment (e.g., "it is light" "honey is > sweet") are the data that we can analyze for the sake of sharpening our > account of how signs that are mere feelings (i.e., qualisigns) might > function in an uncontrolled inference to a perceptual judgment. > >

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji Sent: Sunday, 20 December 2015 07:05 To: PEIRCE-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Hi Gary R, You wrote : "As I thought I'd made clear over the years, and even quite recently, I do not consider the 9 param

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji Sent: Sunday, 20 December 2015 07:05 To: PEIRCE-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

>> >> >> >> Jeffrey Downard >> Associate Professor >> Department of Philosophy >> Northern Arizona University >> (o) 928 523-8354 >> >> From: g...@gnusystems.ca [g...@gnusystems.ca] >> Sent: Friday, D

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

L' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations NDTR is an acronym for “Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations,” EP2:289-99, fifth section of the 1903 Syllabus, and the main text this thread has been referring to, so far. Since I included in my post a few quotes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

ss complete? > > --Jeff > > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > > From: g...@gnusystems.ca [g...@gnusystems.ca] > Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Matt, list, Can you give your source for this? I cannot. I confess that my statement was not well-thought out. I did not mean to imply anything about the possibility of developing scientific terminology in any given human language. What I meant "about the development of a language to the point

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Matt, list, So, [the token of] smoke [in your mind], as understood as being a type, e.g., relating to other instances of smoke, is a perceptual judgment. This is still a poor way of stating the matter. The token is not a type; but your statement, as worded, suggests that it is. There is smoke as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

[image: Gary Richmond] >>> >>> *Gary Richmond* >>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>> *Communication Studies* >>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>> *C 745* >>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >>> >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

ZN > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > *From:* Franklin Ransom [mailto:pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, 13 December 2015 23:19 > *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 1 > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > > > John, list,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

List, >>> >>> In MS 7, Peirce says: "Secondly, a sign may be complex; and the parts >>> of a sign, though they are signs, may not possess all the essential >>> characters of a more complete sign." How should we understand this >>> distinction between a sufficiently complete sign and th

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Hi Gary F, Thank you very much. I read it once, but I am afraid I will need more than one reading to really understand what Peirce was trying to say. All the best. Sung On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 5:54 PM, wrote: > NDTR is an acronym for “Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary F, Jeff, List, Please excuse my ignorance. What is NDTR ? Thanks in advance. Sung On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 3:46 PM, wrote: > Jeff, list, > > > > It does get tricky when we consider the percept as a sign — as the > excerpts you quote in your first two paragraphs

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jeff, list, It does get tricky when we consider the percept as a sign — as the excerpts you quote in your first two paragraphs (below) demonstrate; and I think it gets equally tricky when we consider the qualisign as a percept. But my more specific responses here will be inserted below,

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

NDTR is an acronym for “Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations,” EP2:289-99, fifth section of the 1903 Syllabus, and the main text this thread has been referring to, so far. Since I included in my post a few quotes from MS 7, which we discussed at some length back in the spring of

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

ase see my comments below: - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Brian Downard" <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> To: "'Peirce-L'" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 2:19 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations, - units of thought

> ____________________ > From: Edwina Taborsky [tabor...@primus.ca] > Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 2:13 PM > To: g...@gnusystems.ca; 'Peirce-L' > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > Gary F- I'm aware t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jeff - please see my comments below: - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Brian Downard" <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> To: "'Peirce-L'" <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2015 2:19 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

ssor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Edwina Taborsky [tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 2:13 PM To: g...@gnusystems.ca; 'Peirce-L' Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relation

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

On 12/13/15 6:24 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: Human languages differ with respect to the rules of construction and the things that can be said, and they also develop and evolve over time; the development of a language to the point where it can articulate scientific terminology is not a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Matt, Franklin, List, ""Today, it is quite obvious that people living with Stone Age technology speak languages as complex and versatile as those spoken in the most highly industrialized society. *There are no primitive languages*. Virtually no linguist today would disagree with this statement."

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

___ From: g...@gnusystems.ca [g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2015 2:25 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Jon A.S., IF (I say If!) we can consider the percept as the subject of the perceptual judgment, then I t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

On 12/13/15 9:38 AM, Franklin Ransom wrote: Matt wrote: EP2.227: "perceptual judgments contain general elements," whereas percepts don't. So, if you have a general type (legisign) in mind then you have a perceptual judgment. So, smoke, as understood as being a type, e.g.,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Franklin, Peircers, Here a distinction that I find helpful: EP2.227: "perceptual judgments contain general elements," whereas percepts don't. So, if you have a general type (legisign) in mind then you have a perceptual judgment. So, smoke, as understood as being a type, e.g., relating to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Matt, list, Matt wrote: EP2.227: "perceptual judgments contain general elements," whereas percepts > don't. So, if you have a general type (legisign) in mind then you have a > perceptual judgment. So, smoke, as understood as being a type, e.g., > relating to other instances of smoke, is a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Franklin, List, You wrote the following statements with quotation marks: "Smoke, qua type, is not a perceptual judgment. A perceptual judgment (121315-1) is not the general element, but includes the general as its predicate." "So, as I said, one must say something like "that there is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Sung, list, Well Sung, you didn't quote yourself at length, and it's on topic, so I'll respond. Your penchant for numbering every claim is a bit curious, and since I don't think anyone else is making use of the numbered claims, I wonder why you do it. Is this habit related to some professional

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

John, list, I will become much less active for the next few months after today. I would agree that the pragmatist C.I. Lewis viewed appearances as ineffable, and the analytic philosopher Quine was probably the same way; of Sellars, I couldn't say. Peirce does not view appearances as ineffable

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Sung, list, In fact I am now of the opinion that there may be two aspects to language > -- (i) the language as a *type* (to be denoted with a bold capital, *L*),and > (ii) the languages as *tokens* of *L* (to be denoted as L), leading to > the following notations: > * L*(L1, L2, L3, . . . ,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Franklin, List, (*1*) I like to number statements in my posts to keep track of them, and this is a common practice in physics and mathematics and some physicist writers even recommend this practice for non -technical writings. Also it makes it easier to refer to them when necessary. In fact I

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Franklin Ransom [mailto:pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, 13 December 2015 23:19 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 1 Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations John, list, I will become much less active for the next few

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

om] Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2015 6:41 AM To: <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 1 Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Gary F, A perceptual judgment must take the form of a dicisign, so I would say the identification

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary F, Just to clarify, do the categories still apply to a percept when it is considered as a singular phenomenon? I noticed that you say the verbal expression of the perceptual judgment is a dicisign, but you do not say that the perceptual judgment is a dicisign. Is it your position that the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jeff, list, Peirce does say, in paragraph 539 from Vol. 4 of CP, that "[t]he Immediate Object of all knowledge and all thought is, in the last analysis, the Percept". When you ask whether the percept is the smoke itself, or a visual impression, I think this statement from Peirce implies you are

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

Jerry, list, Well, I'm glad that someone agrees with me, as far as the statement went. Jerry, I think that you raise some good questions. Though, I must admit I'm not entirely sure what a couple of your terms mean, such as 'coupling' and 'grammar'. As for 'unit', I'll guess you mean something

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Franklin, Yes, this excerpt from Peirce’s “Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism” demonstrates that according to the purpose of the analysis, a percept can be considered either as an object or a sign. (And of course signs can be objects of other signs, otherwise we could say nothing

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jeff, One comment inserted below, after your first paragraph. My response to your post as a whole is that most of it — and especially your attempt to situate Peirce in the history of Western philosophy — is “above my pay grade,” as Jon S. put it. To the extent that I follow your

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

y Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: g...@gnusystems.ca [g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: Friday, December 11, 2015 9:04 AM To: 'Peirce-L' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relati

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Dec 11, 2015, at 9:04 AM, wrote: > > I can only ask: Who is “we”, and which of us is in a position to judge the > “success” or non-success of “our” explanations? I think it often happens that > one person’s explanation is another’s obfuscation,

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

to catch up with later posts! Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 7-Dec-15 15:29 To: Jeffrey Brian Downard <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations Jeff, List: To

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jeff, some responses interleaved … Gary f. -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu] Sent: 7-Dec-15 15:35 Gary F., Gary R., List, Sorry for the errors in transcribing Nathan's table. I put it into my notes, and then added a bunch of

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jeff, responses interleaved again … Gary f. -Original Message- From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu] Sent: 8-Dec-15 14:10 Hello Jon S., Gary F., List, Jon, given what you say in 1&2 below, then we do have a question. Gary F. says that qualisigns

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary, List: Based on the excerpt below, would a perceptual judgment be properly classified as a dicent sinsign? And would the percept itself be a rhematic indexical sinsign? Or is the percept not yet a sign at all? Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur

  1   2   >