RE: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

n Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: 29-Mar-18 11:51 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants Gary F., List: Just to clarify, are you suggesting that Peirce ultimately abandoned the distinction between the Sign as a general and its Rep

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

ning Signs* gateway > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* 28-Mar-18 14:07 > *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants > > > > Gary F., List: > > On your analysis--in which the Dynamic Interpretant is

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

n Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: 28-Mar-18 14:07 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants Gary F., List: On your analysis--in which the Dynamic Interpretant is Peirce answering, which is considered to be an exertion rather than another Sign

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Gary F., List: On your analysis--in which the Dynamic Interpretant is Peirce answering, which is considered to be an exertion rather than another Sign--his wife's question is Percussive. On my current analysis, the Mode of Being of a Sign is *always and only* that of a Type. The 1908 division

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Jon, responses inserted. Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt Sent: 28-Mar-18 10:56 Gary F., List: Interrogative is not one of the classes according to the Nature or Mode of Being of the Dynamic Interpretant; that division is Sympathetic/Percussive/Usual. In fact,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants and Fuzzy Logic

Helmut and Edwina, HR I have questions about the terms "model", "truth", "fuzzy": "Model": I used to think it was synonymous with "theory"... "Truth": Are there two (or more?) kinds of it... "Fuzzy(ness)": Are there two (or more, think of others) reasons... Those words could generate an

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants and Fuzzy Logic

John, Edwina, List,   I have questions abot the terms "model", "truth", "fuzzy":   "Model": I used to think it was synonymous with "theory". But now I guess, it is an abstraction (like your (John´s) network graph in the pdf-link) of a special situation to which a general theory applies. Is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants and Fuzzy Logic

On 3/25/2018 5:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: I think that it's very difficult to correlate theory to model to the real world -  and I think that Peirce specifically didn't want to do such a thing, not because of the difficulty but because of the resultant 'lack of truth' in these correlations.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants and Fuzzy Logic

Edwina, John S, list On 3/25/2018 3:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > I would suggest that Peirce's 'haziness' and 'fuzzy logic' have a great > deal in common. > John Sowa: I agree, but there is one important difference. See the article on "What is the source of fuzziness?" I disagree, at least

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants and Fuzzy Logic

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }John, list Thanks for your very informative paper. I like the egg-yolk diagrams for fuzzy sets - As an aside, I been to a number of conferences where Lotfi spoke- and know Daniel Dubois and his excellent

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants and Fuzzy Logic

On 3/25/2018 3:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: I would suggest that Peirce's 'haziness' and 'fuzzy logic' have a great deal in common. I agree, but there is one important difference. See the article on "What is the source of fuzziness?" : http://jfsowa.com/pubs/fuzzy.pdf In 1965, Zadeh began

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants Degeneracy?

List: > On Mar 24, 2018, at 9:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > 1905 | Letters to Mario Calderoni | MS [R] L67:32-33 > …that Secundanity which consists in one man’s having a stature of 6 feet and > another man’s having a stature of 5 feet is a degenerate Secundanity, since > each would be

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Gary R, Jon AS, and Edwina, JFS: My only point is that if any of those definitions are precise, then they cannot be the same as the hazy notion that Peirce was trying to define. If so, Peirce's ethics of terminology implies they should not use Peirce's term -- they should choose a different

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Jon: > On Mar 24, 2018, at 11:31 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > As I said before, our projects are different because our aims are different. Can you explain your “aims”? Since it may not be obvious, this member of this board has the aim of understanding the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Edwina, List: What I mean by "constructive" is feedback that is intended to assist me in my inquiry *on its own terms*, rather than just express disagreement because what I am proposing is different from one's own well-established views. I believe that I am no more "defensive" in advocating my

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

I take it you agree with Pierce in this instance. I made what I think is a substantive point and was thankful for being prompted for saying it. I am now to conclude that the point I made which has massive implications for philosophy is to be subordinated to what you suggest are nuances to subtle

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

I do not regard tolerance, helpfulness, democracy, freedom. love and justice as matters of "sentiment" any more than I regard Wittgensteins notion of such talk as unspeakable or nonsensical. I was drawn to Peirce precisely because he opened for me a way of seeing that looking at matters as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Stephen, list, You wrote: "Triadic philosophy asks how what we are considering is tolerant, helpful and democratic. It considers how it relates to freedom. love and justice." I understand that *your* triadic philosophy--quite different from Peirce's by your own admission even in terms of your

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

I don't post that often. I study as best I can and when I react it is mainly to Peirce himself. I do not lack interest in Peirce or boast about such. I do not express or feel contempt for anyone. I certainly do not see “triadic philosophy” as meriting more interest, care or attention than Peirce.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

far one can go. [T.S. Eliot] { <http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway From: Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> Sent: 24-Mar-18 10:35 To: Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca>; Peirce List <Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> Subje

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Edwina, List: I appreciate the distinction that you make between our different projects, but I think that you are overestimating the ambition of mine. I am well aware of the difference between complicated and complex, as well as the difference between complex and complex-adaptive. I fully

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

ieved > from http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/degenerate-secondness, > 24.03.2018. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> > *Sent:* 23-Mar-18 20:19 > *To:* Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com>; Peirce Lis

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

e List <Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants List: On Mar 23, 2018, at 6:20 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com <mailto:stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: The degenerate notions elude me. Me, too. This term has a crisp meanin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Bogus is a strong term. I think Edwina is suggesting that we observe the pragmatic maxim. What is the practical effect or substance of a consideration? What is the whole of the matter? What is the end of this particular effort to parse a particular sign? Triadic philosophy asks how what we are

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Edwina, list, You wrote: "I think that the various comments and concerns by others on the list, that attempts to set up an analytic and abstract model of the semiosic process, with each part defined within an exact and singular term and providing an exact and singular action - actually deny the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

List: > On Mar 23, 2018, at 6:20 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > The degenerate notions elude me. Me, too. This term has a crisp meaning in physics/chemistry terminology. Cheers Jerry - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

What is all experience if not the experience of semiosis (encounter with signs) and how can these be "studied" (semiotics) without words of some other interpretive means? As I parse things, reality (which I insist is all) communicates with us via signs. We, as part of reality, refine signs into

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

List: I concur with John Sowa’s post and his observations on the need for intellectual honesty. Cheers Jerry > On Mar 22, 2018, at 8:38 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 3/21/2018 2:22 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: >> Peirce says here that this kind of analysis "relates to a real

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

John, Gary R, Jon A.S., Mary et al., I too have been reflecting on the last few sentences of Peirce’s 1909 letter to James, but my thoughts have been tending in a somewhat different direction. When Peirce says that his attempt to distinguish clearly among the three interpretants “relates to a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

John, list, JS: On 3/21/2018 2:22 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > Peirce says here that this kind of analysis "relates to a real and > important three-way distinction." It may yet have been--at that point in > time--"quite hazy," but since Peirce saw it as "a real and important > three-way

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

This goes far toward substantiating a general observation about discussion or communication in a forum such as this. To be Peircean should not be seen as having the right slant on what he means as having a general relationship to a zeitgeist that is not that difficult to define. It exists on

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

On 3/21/2018 2:22 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: Peirce says here that this kind of analysis "relates to a real and important three-way distinction." It may yet have been--at that point in time--"quite hazy," but since Peirce saw it as "a real and important three-way distinction" there would seem to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Edwina, List: I sincerely appreciate the effort on your part, but it seems to me that you are still trying to read the diagram in accordance with *your* definitions of the terms, rather than *mine*. 1. Each instance of OI-S-II is what you would call a "triad." 2. Yes, the second Sign (Y) is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

; Jeff > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 <(928)%20523-8354> > > -- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, March 22, 2018

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 9:45 AM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants Gary F., List: I have trouble translating Peirce's assignments of the two Objects and three Interpretants in these two specific examples into coherent and mu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Gary F., List: I have trouble translating Peirce's assignments of the two Objects and three Interpretants in these two specific examples into coherent and mutually compatible definitions for them. Obviously one possible explanation for this is that I simply do not correctly understand his theory

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Mar-18 10:15 To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants Gary F.: Which aspects of my reasoning are you unable to follow? Which questions in this context do you think that Peirce left open? In all honesty, I have never been able to make heads or tails o

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

If semiosis is real, a general, true regardless what one thinks or does not think, how can any theory of it be more than an inadequate effort to make sense of the reality it embodies. This is one reason that examples are relevant. If my sign is today's news i can proceed to tell you how I might

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Edwina, List: I have given you what I believe are *very clear* answers to your questions and comments, but you refuse to accept them because they are inconsistent with your own peculiar terminology--which, in my opinion, is *not *Peirce's terminology. Setting it aside does not necessarily mean

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Edwina, List: As I said, if you are unwilling, for the sake of this discussion, to set aside your own model of semiosis--and (especially) your own peculiar terminology, which is very different from mine--then further dialogue between us will almost certainly be fruitless. I fully expect you to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Jon, list: 1: Of course I know that the Quasi-Mind need not be a person but can be a group of crystals and etc.! I am trying to provide an EXAMPLE of such and its interaction. There is no need to complicate a

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

List, I think, the whole matter is not so complicated. I think, the sign (functionally) consists of sign (itself), object, interpretant. The object (functionally) consists of IO and DO. The interpretant (functionally) consists of II, DI, FI. Very simple. Functional consistence (functional

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon, list: And I continue puzzling over your statement below: JAS: "Suppose that Quasi-mind A utters Sign Y, which determines Quasi-mind B to a further Sign Z as its Effectual or Dynamic Interpretant.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Dear list, I think there is good support for what John said regarding: I don't want to block anybody's "way of inquiry". But I wouldn't waste my time, *unless* some significant new evidence is discovered. That is, Peirce had once said, The matter is not yet very clear to me; so unless

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

John, Jon, Gary f, list, You wrote: JS: If these issues were hazy and imperfect for Peirce, Lady Welby, and the Significs group, I don't believe that they can be resolved by the same methods they used in their day. . And yet in the passage you quoted Peirce writes: Now it is easy to see that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

> Gary f. > > From: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com > <mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>> > Sent: 20-Mar-18 21:42 > To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants > &g

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Gary F.: Which aspects of my reasoning are you unable to follow? Which questions in this context do you think that Peirce left open? In all honesty, I have never been able to make heads or tails of Peirce's example that you quoted, so I would be grateful if you and/or others could shed some

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

chm...@gmail.com> Sent: 20-Mar-18 21:42 To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants Gary F., List: On the contrary, it merely implies that the Intentional Interpretant of a given Sign is not determined by that Sign itself, but by the Sig

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Gary F., List: On the contrary, it merely implies that the Intentional Interpretant of a given Sign is not determined by *that *Sign itself, but by the Signs that come *before *it in the uttering Quasi-mind; and I am assuming, along the same lines as Gary R., that each Sign is determined by

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

hotomy? Are there really only three interpretants, not six or more? >> >> Gary f. >> >> >> >> *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* 20-Mar-18 16:33 >> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >> *Subject:* Re:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

t; *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* 20-Mar-18 16:33 > *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants > > > > Garys, List: > > > > GR: When you say that the Dynamic Object determines

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

name only from the Immediate/Dynamical/Final trichotomy? Are there really only three interpretants, not six or more? Gary f. From: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: 20-Mar-18 16:33 To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretant

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Garys, List: GR: When you say that the Dynamic Object determines the Sign, what part does the Immediate Object play in that determination? I am for now assuming that it is the Form which the Sign will represent. Can one say that the Dynamic Object determines the Immediate Object which determines

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

gmail.com> Sent: 20-Mar-18 14:05 To: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants Jon, list, Thanks for this very helpful analysis of the three interpretants of Peirce's late semeiotic. My first impression is, from what I can grasp of it, that

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Jon, one question re your statement: “… he had defined the Intentional Interpretant as "a determination of the mind of the utterer" (SS 196, EP 2:478). Apparently he realized that, as such, it obviously cannot be an Interpretant of the Sign that the utterer is currently uttering …” Why not?

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Jon, list, Thanks for this very helpful analysis of the three interpretants of Peirce's late semeiotic. My first impression is, from what I can grasp of it, that it seems correct and complete, a succinct and subtle analysis. But I'll want to study it further as there are some points which are