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

Jerry, CSP did use divisions into three, so trichotomies do belong to his philosophy. Only in his latest phase he devoted himself to developing triadicity as his key concept in his theory of the Categories. So, trichotomies of signs, such as icon, index, symbol etc. are OK. But only for the

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

Gary, Kirsti, list, You wrote, "I've been a little "out of it" post surgery, but did someone earlier quote that passage? In any event, I can't find it in this thread." I was referring to a post by Orliaguet from many years ago, but nobody else quoted it in the thread. I tried a few years ago

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

Kirsti, Jerry, list, Kirsti is generally correct. I remember years ago at peirce-l when Orliaguet made the same point (with superfluous sarcasm) to Kirsti. He quoted a passage by Peirce that required understanding the term "triad" to refer to the three correlates in triadic action with one

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

List, Franklin, Frederik: The OUP book, The Structure of Objects by Kathrin Koslicki (2008) addresses some of the philosophy that appears to be difficult to understand. More particularly, it illuminates the triad, sinsign, index and dicisign in relation to parts of the whole, the illation

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

Jerry, list, Jerry, you wrote: The terms "coupling" and "grammar" are used in the senses of CSP. Coupling > referring to CSP's paper on the logic of Copula. Grammar in the typical > sense that that one may find in the classical text by Otto Jesperson, *The > Philosophy of Grammar *or in CSP's

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

(This post was found in my email "Draft Box”. This response was drafted on Dec. 13 th, 2015. Franklin, Matt, List: Some short responses to your concerns and further questions are raised. On Dec 12, 2015, at 4:10 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > Jerry, list, > > Well, I'm glad that someone agrees

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

; - Original Message - > *From:* Franklin Ransom <pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2015 4:40 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > Edwina, > > My

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

irce-L Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwina, My point is that ANY peoples, - since they have the capacity for thought - and thus, ANY language, can achieve such a result - and it doesn't requi

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

for your reply. Please see my comments below: > > - Original Message - > *From:* Franklin Ransom <pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2015 2:53 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and tri

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

Franklin - thanks for your reply. Please see my comments below: - Original Message - From: Franklin Ransom To: Peirce-L Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwina, I will quote myself from

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

ince we all are the > same species* - then, we can all think the same way. Language - either in > its grammar or its words - does not confine or define us. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Franklin Ransom <pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com> > *To:* Peirce

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

Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@LIST.IUPUI.EDU> > *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2015 11:48 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > > On Dec 14, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote: > &g

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

Clark, list, you wrote: " If you have the form but not the matter then it’s degenerate.". Thank you: This way eventually, after a long time,  I think I understand why it is called degenerate. Maybe it is like this: "matter" may be understood for "reason", like in the question "Whats the

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

  Supplement: So, degeneracy is not a de-evolution or reverse (de-) generation, but an incomplete or wrong comprehension of how something has been generated (and so the reason why it has), based on the fact, that the generation process is not easily observable, not observable at all, or not

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

> On Dec 18, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > "If you have the form but not the matter then it’s degenerate.". Thank you: > This way eventually, after a long time, I think I understand why it is > called degenerate. Yeah, it’s a terminology I kind of struggle

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

: Clark Goble ; Jeffrey Brian Downard Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 12:32 AM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Jerry, I think you are making this seem more mysterious than it is. My understanding is that degeneracy means that there is a restriction

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

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 10:32 PM, John Collier wrote: > > In the passage from Peirce that you quote below, by way of Clark, I think the > distinction is that the degenerate seconds consider them in terms of their > form alone, which degenerates our understanding of them to

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

us, UKZN > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2015 13:10 > To: John Collier > Cc: Peirce-L; Clark Goble; Jeffrey Brian Downard > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations &

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

[mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2015 01:52 > To: Peirce-L > Cc: Clark Goble; Jeffrey Brian Downard > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > Clark, Jeffrey, List: > > Allow me to expand on the na

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

Clark, Jeffrey, List: Allow me to expand on the nature of my ignorance of the meaning of degeneracy. Clearly, CSP's usage of this term with respect to mathematical objects, that is conic sections, is crisp and meaningful within the Pythagorean-Cartesian perspective of relations. Jeff's

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

, 2015 3:01 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations On Dec 16, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de<mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de>> wrote: Degenerateness, I think, is a relation too. So, something may be (regarded for) degenerate,

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

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > Degenerateness, I think, is a relation too. So, something may be (regarded > for) degenerate, if you look at it as a mode. Because degeneracy is a trait > of modes. But if you look at the same thing regarding it for a

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

December 2015 01:52 To: Peirce-L Cc: Clark Goble; Jeffrey Brian Downard Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Clark, Jeffrey, List: Allow me to expand on the nature of my ignorance of the meaning of degeneracy. Clearly, CSP's usage of this term with respect to mathematical

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the meaning of unity. Co-extensivity of symbol systems

List, Matt: Hmmm... One must consider the facts of both the history of mathematics and the history of writing. The clay tablets from the 3 rd millennium BC show two types of symbols and calculations. One sort of symbol for numbers and another sort of symbol for objects (nouns.) (The

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the meaning of unity.

List, The argument given in Matt's email below is problematic. I will raise a question and make a brief and casual effort to place a Peircian interpretation on symbolic communication in terms of current scientific terminology. While human language is a very powerful source of human

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the meaning of unity.

On 12/14/15 8:00 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: 1. Mathematical equations can be read as sentences, but when the number of terms is large, the reader must evaluate the individual symbols as units of the whole and as the unity (wholeness of the equation) for the message to be communicated. This

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the meaning of unity.

On 12/14/15 8:00 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: List, The argument given in Matt's email below is problematic. I will raise a question and make a brief and casual effort to place a Peircian interpretation on symbolic communication in terms of current scientific terminology. While human

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

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Matt Faunce wrote: > > 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

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

11:48 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations On Dec 14, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Matt Faunce <mattfau...@gmail.com> wrote: On 12/13/15 6:24 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: Human languages differ with respect to the rules of construction and the

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

Gary R, lists, You wrote: "Following a suggestion made by Ben Udell many years ago when I was writing a paper which, in part, meant to distinguish between these sign types and classes, I sometimes refer to sign 'types' as 'parameters' as being closer to Peirce's meaning. This is also why I

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

Hi Gary, lists, You wrote: ". . . I don't see the point or relevance of Sung's (2) and (3), . " These items are reproduced below within quotation marks for convenience: "(*2*) According to the quark model of the Peircean sign discussed in earlier posts, the 9 types of signs (referred to as

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

> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the sign types > defined in NDTR, including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This flags a > possible ambiguity in the concepts of genuine and degenerate; and possibly > this

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

Clark, Jeff, Gary F, lists, You wrote: " . . . On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the sign types defined in NDTR, (120815-1) including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This flags a possible ambiguity in the concepts of genuine and degenerate; . . . " (*1*)

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

n, the > full triad, on the other hand, is embodied, in both breadth and depth. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 08, 2015 4:26

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

in both breadth and depth. Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations List, Although I don't see the point or

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

List, Although I don't see the point or relevance of Sung's (2) and (3), in my opinion a great deal of semiotic confusion *has* been generated by confusing and conflating (1) sign types with sign classes. No doubt Peirce himself contributed to this confusion, although in *some *cases and *in

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

in both breadth and depth. Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations List, Although I don't see the point or relevance of Sung's (2) and (3), in m

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

List, John: 3.418. "Thus, the question whether a fact is to be regarded as to referring to a single thing or to more is a question of the form of the proposition under which it suits our purposes to state the fact." On Dec 6, 2015, at 6:26 AM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015

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

Sunday, 06 December 2015 7:13 PM To: Peirce-L Cc: John Collier Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity. List, John: 3.418. "Thus, the question whether a fact is to be regarded as to referring to a single thing or to mor

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

/collier From: Franklin Ransom [mailto:pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, 06 December 2015 2:26 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity. John, You said: The physicalism stems from the Pragmatic Maxim, which makes

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

John, You said: The physicalism stems from the Pragmatic Maxim, which makes any difference > in meaning depend on a difference in possible experience together with > Quine’s idea that the physical is just what we can experience. I take it > that the last is also Peirce’s view, and he is no

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

List, John: On Dec 6, 2015, at 8:04 AM, John Collier wrote: > Peirce has a specific view of experience. Meaning has to be referenced to > something, and that something cannot be internal (mental in one sense), or > we go in circles (which is acceptable to some philosophers, but not to >

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

John, I don't think I have any significant disagreement with much of what you've had to say concerning Peirce's commitment to the external element in experience. I am curious though as to whether you believe you experience external minds, and if so, whether you would count them as physical? I

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

Goble Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity. List, John: On Dec 2, 2015, at 11:39 AM, John Collier wrote: Jerry, there is some very convoluted reasoning in this, but I will try to explain. See interspersed comments. The message

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

understand your physical perspective, then I can easy understand why you answer in this way. Cheers Jerry > John Collier > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 02

Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

ng to do with modern natural sciences or with information > science > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> > *To:* PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2015 8:35 PM > *Sub

Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

ics: > Natural Science * > *beyond the Veil of Spacetime* (R. Amoroso, P. Rowlands, and L. Kauffman, > eds.) > World Scientific, New Jersey, pp. 579-589. >[3] Ji, S. (2012a) Isomorphism between Blackbody Radiation and Enzymic > Catalysis, in: *Molecular * > *Theory of the Living Ce

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

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > (1) I agree with you on the definition of these categories of Peirce. > We seem to disagree on how to assign these categories to the three worlds of > Burgin and the three roses of Scotus. I’m not quite sure why you

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

: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity. List, Clark: On Dec 2, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Clark Goble wrote: I'm not quite sure why you are applying firstness to structure where structures are inherently relations and firstness

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

List, Clark: On Dec 2, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > I’m not quite sure why you are applying firstness to structure where > structures are inherently relations and firstness is inherently a thing in > itself without relations. > >From my perspective, this argument, ignores the

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

...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji Sent: Thursday, 03 December 2015 12:30 AM To: PEIRCE-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Hi Clark, lists, You wrote: "I’m not quite sure why you are applying firstness to structure where struc

Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Edwina - Original Message - From: Sungchul Ji To: PEIRCE-L Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwina, Clark, John, lists You wrote: "Burgin's three worlds

Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

neral' - and these are not valid outlines of the three categories. Edwina - Original Message - From: Sungchul Ji To: PEIRCE-L Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:29 PM Subject: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Hi Clark, lists,

Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

ical nominals as 'subjective, objective and general' - and these > are not valid outlines of the three categories. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> > *To:* PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Wed

Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

psychological nominals as 'subjective, objective and general' - and these >> are not valid outlines of the three categories. >> >> Edwina >> >> - Original Message ----- >> *From:* Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> >> *To:* PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list

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

Hi Clark, ". . . * Firstness* is the world of raw experience, ideas or possibility, *secondness* the world (120115-1) of reactions, brute force & actuality and *thirdness* the world of signs, connections and power (not necessarily mental unless one is careful what one means

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

: Wednesday, 02 December 2015 4:16 AM To: PEIRCE-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Hi Clark, ". . . Firstness is the world of raw experience, ideas or possibility, secondness the world (120115-1) of reactions, brute force & actuality and

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

-8354 From: Claudio Guerri [claudiogue...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 2:18 PM To: Stephen C. Rose; Clark Goble Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Stephen, Clark, Edwina, List... I think that I wrote

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

Stephen, Clark, Edwina, List... I think that I wrote already about this subject... but there are two authors that I like very much that constructed some good 'metaphors' for the understanding of the /triadic relation/. Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser studied Peirce in a Seminar by Farnçois

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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:15 AM, wrote: > > Probably the most common distinction made by Peirce in this connection is > that between real relations and relations of reason Yes, that section of The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus I linked to yesterday

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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > > Interestingly relative to Scotus the middle voice argument usually is made by > the proponents of analogy against Scotus. Heidegger sees this voice as key to > understanding the pre-socratics (since he’s caught up on

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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > >> Are you suggesting this as an alternative world view relative to physical >> "laws", e.g., the absence of order? > > No, far from it. Rather the argument would be this is what enables laws to > develop. Actually let

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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > > f g > Real Rose > Rose ---> Mental Rose > (Firstness) (Secondness)

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

Clark, Gary F, Gary R, lists, Clark quoted Scotus as saying: “ . . .* rose* is not divided into *real roses* and merely (113015-1) *conceptual roses* for they are two modes of being of the same thing.” (The emphasis is added.) Three related terms appear here: 'rose',

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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Agreed. As I've said, I don't agree with confining the term 'sign' to refer > to and only to one single Relation in the whole triad; that of the > Representamen or ground. That transforms this one Relation, the >

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

Triadic Philosophy as I have evolved it over its lifetime tends to agree in with what you have said Clark about the triad. With the following exception which I take to be at least somewhat related to Peirce and perhaps to agree with something I have seen in Edwina's posts. The triadic progression

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

And this removes the linearity of actor-acted upon, since instead, we have a complex interactive network where such simple unilinear direction can't be assumed. Edwina - Original Message - From: Clark Goble To: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 1:40 PM Subject: Re:

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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > I am uncertain with regard to the meaning of this sentence. > The term "middle voice" suggests utterances and hence a relation to grammar > and rhetoric and logic. Originally yes. However it related to

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

al Message - From: Clark Goble To: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: Agreed. As I've said, I don't agree with confinin

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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > I certainly didn't mean to imply that I, myself, thought that the > Representamen functioned as a kind of 'Sovereign Will 'agent. I was instead > suggesting that Gary F's insistence on considering ONLY the

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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > I always have a problem at this point. Isnt it so, that natural laws and > natural constants havent change at all since the big bang? Depends upon what one means by law. In physics laws are often treated as

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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > The idea that one sign may be dominant is nicely highlighted in Peirce's > discussion of focusing attention on one thing and letting others fade into > the background. This ability to focus one's

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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 2:18 PM, Claudio Guerri wrote: > > Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser studied Peirce in a Seminar by Farnçois > Recanati in Paris, France, during the 50's...??? if somebody knows a good > reference, I would be glad to know more about... That’s

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

Clark, lists, you wrote: "Yet his broad notion of mind and habits actually fits cosmology quite well." I always have a problem at this point. Isnt it so, that natural laws and natural constants havent change at all since the big bang? I like tychism, synechism, and agapism very much though, as

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

: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Stephen, Clark, Edwina, List... I think that I wrote already about this subject... but there are two authors that I like very much that constructed some good 'metaphors' for the understanding of the triadic relation. Jacques Lacan

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

Clark, I share your scepticism about psychoanalysis John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: CLARK GOBLE [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: Tuesday, 01 December 2015 4:48 AM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

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

reviewers have done something similar). John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: Monday, 30 November 2015 8:10 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:50 AM

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

-15 23:03 To: PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:34 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: Jon, if you can point out where Peirce's text or mine in this thread i

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

on an existential material nature. So, that full triad, the Sign, functions and exists as a molecule, a cell, a weathervane, a word, an argument. Edwina - Original Message - From: CLARK GOBLE To: PEIRCE-L Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 11:17 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs

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

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Again, Peirce uses the term of 'sign' to refer to both the Representamen and > the full triadic set of relations. You have to be careful of the context to > figure out which one he is referring to. This is

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

> On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:34 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > Jon, if you can point out where Peirce's text or mine in this thread is > conducive to the kind of confusion you are warning us about, I'll see what I > can do to clarify things. But I don't really have the time for a wild goose >

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

> On Nov 29, 2015, at 9:03 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote: > > I assume this refers to the types of relations one finds in say Duns Scotus. > For those interested the SEP has an entry on medieval theories of relations > that is helpful. > >

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

or Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: g...@gnusystems.ca <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 4:14 AM To: 'PEIRCE-L' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations Yes, Peirce says that “meaning is a tri

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

is careful about the > context it is possible to select which usage Peirce makes in each case. > > > > John Collier > > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > *From:* g...@gnusystems.ca [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca <g...@gnusystems.ca>] > >

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

- From: John Collier To: g...@gnusystems.ca ; 'PEIRCE-L' Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 12:49 AM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations I don’t have quotes handy, but I am pretty sure that Peirce uses “sign” in both ways. This caused me some problems

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

nal Message - From: g...@gnusystems.ca To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 7:33 AM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations Thanks very much for this, Matt. I think the quotes you found are about as close as Peirce ever gets to def

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

Yes, Peirce says that “meaning is a triadic relation.” But meaning is not a sign. Edwina, you say that a sign is a triadic relation, or a “triad,” while Peirce says that a sign is “a correlate of a triadic relation.” Do you really not see the difference? Likewise with reference to CP

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

Gary F - see my comments. And, again, if you know of any place where Peirce rejects the triad - please inform us. - Original Message - From: g...@gnusystems.ca To: 'PEIRCE-L' Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:14 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic

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

s in each case. John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier *From:*g...@gnusystems.ca [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] *Sent:* Thursday, 26 November 2015 4:14 AM *To:* 'PEIRCE-L' *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations Yes, Peirce says that “meaning is a t

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

the context it is possible to select which usage Peirce makes in each case. John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: g...@gnusystems.ca [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 4:14 AM To: 'PEIRCE-L' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic