Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words

John: While the abstractions of mathematics are extremely powerful, and have had profound influence on our economic systems, such abstractions are far less powerful in analysis of complex systems of chemistry and biology. I believe that your statement below is categorically in error. > On Jul

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in Diagrams vs Thinking in Words

Dear Robert, That was something between idle snark and off-the-cuff remark, as that's all my current dis-array of interrupredations allow me right now, but it does touch on pressing issues about the present reception and comprehension of Peirce's impact which have been tugging at the edges of my

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in Diagrams vs Thinking in Words

Dear Jon, List, > I know what book you are talking about; today it can be downloaded for > free... > I looked at your diagram... it rejuvenated me... indeed, I was always the > terror of my students because, whenever they presented me with a diagram I > demanded that every single point, every

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in Diagrams vs Thinking in Words

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon, list Hmm. Does this claim, " the difference between people who "think in words about thinking in diagrams" and people who "think in words about thinking in words". 1]..not lead to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in Diagrams vs Thinking in Words

Dear Robert, John, Edwina, ... This discussion reminds me a lot of the time I spent the big bucks buying a book on "Diagrammatology" which ran to over 500 pages with many sections in very small print and had just over 50 diagrams in the whole thing. So I think the real "versus" here is more

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Robert, list 1] If I understand your question correctly - is it - our first experience is: the phaneron. This is essentially the qualisign experience of one material entity with its surroundings. I'd

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words

Dear John, Edwina, List Let me clarify my question: The references in parentheses refer to the classification compiled by Tommi Vehkavaara. The classification of the Sciences of Discovery

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words

In my previous note, I accidentally typed the word 'nominalists' twice,  In the corrected version below, the second occurrence is changed to 'scientists'. Actuality consists of everything that exists in space and time.  It's what nominalists claim is everything.  But they have no answer to the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words

Robert> This leads me to a final question to be discussed:  should the classification of sciences according to Peirce be considered as a kind of imperative to be respected or can phenomenology be approached from the logic that depends on it according to this classification? There is no conflict

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words

Terry, Jack, Helmut, Edwina, List, TLR> Perhaps “our knowledge base” isn’t either learned or innate (per exclusive disjunction), but both learned and innate. The nature/nuture/culture issues have been debated for centuries, and there is a lot of evidence that is sometimes clear and sometimes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words

Barthes was exaggerating ... he went back on his declarations later ... but symbolic violence (which is exerted in particular on cultural minorities) is a useful concept adopted by sociologists (Pierre Bourdieu and his school in particular) ... and let's not forget Aesop: "language is the best and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Robert, List 1] What?! Language is fascist?! Does he even know what the term means? Most people who fling out this term have no understanding of its meaning. No, he's ignoring the work of, if I recall, someone

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words

Dear John, List Your message leads me to multiple questions, which, in my opinion, raise fundamental problems. 1. JS > "*Different people have different ways of thinking and talking."* Yes, but the individuals, as a whole, do not think nor speak independently of each other; diverse common

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words

or...@primus.ca, peirce-l@list.iupui.edu, "John F. Sowa" Cc: ontolog-fo...@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John, list I wonder if diagrammatic thinkin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John, list I wonder if diagrammatic thinking is focused more on relations than specific and separate individual units, i.e., verbs and subjects/objects. That is, I long ago noticed that some indigenous