Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

Helmut - I agree with your outline, where the three categories are operative within continuity. But what is continuity? I consider it as the basic ‘force’ of the universe to ‘exist as signs [ ie discrete entities]. , This force, which Peirce variously called Mind, Nature, God, means that the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

Helmut, List: According to Peirce, "Continuity represents 3ns almost to perfection" (CP 1.337, c. 1882). When we prescind discreteness from continuity, we are prescinding 2ns from 3ns, and we cannot prescind continuity from discreteness because we cannot prescind 3ns from 2ns. Since prescission

[PEIRCE-L] Jay Zeman's discussion of interpretants

As we know, Peirce's writings have inspired many new theories and discoveries for well over a century. But we must always distinguish his exact words from anybody else's interpretations and extensions. For interpretants, I believe that an article Jay Zeman wrote in 1977 is still one of the

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

Mike, In every example and application that Peirce wrote or cited, Thirdness involves intentionality. But intentionality is not an anthropomorphic notion, it is biomorphic in the most fundamental sense. Lynn Margulis wrote that a bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose gradient is a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

Hi John, I categorically disagree. Intentionality may be an example of Thirdness, but is not definitive of it. JAS just posted "Continuity represents 3ns almost to perfection" (CP 1.337, c. 1882), which I concur best captures (with Mind) Peirce's prominent view of Thirdness, and contintuity

[PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

Hi Edwina, Helmut, List, I would like to hear you expand, Edwina, on what you mean about the 'idexicality of locality'. And, speaking of entropy, here is another possible link to the universal categories. flash (of light) [1ns] - energy [2ns] - information [3ns] I've been toying with this

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

Edwina, List, I think, continuity means a gradient without steps. By looking at the gradient with a microscope, we see steps (e.g. quantums). By looking at the inner and outer edges of the steps, we see, that they are rounded (e.g. due to the Heisenbergean blurredness), so continuous again. By

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

Jerry, List: JLRC: First, thanks to JAS for his well crafted initial post and an a direct inquiry to him if those are the only relevant citations to the intermingling of grammatical semantics with CSP’s notion of a copulant. As it turns out, the passage about descriptive/designative/copulant

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

List I agree with Mike. Thirdness, in my view, does not imply or require intentionality. That, after all, suggests some kind of consciousness - and I think we find Thirdness in chemical and physical matter - and these forms of matter do not include consciousness. I have a problem with the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Jay Zeman's discussion of interpretants

Hi, John.  Seeing your note, I updated Peirce-Related Papers at Arisbe with links to Zeman's articles now at archive.org * "Peirce's Theory of Signs"

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

Mike, list I’d define energy as 1ns, with matter being 2ns, and information as these units of 2ns defined within 3ns. By ‘indexicality of locality, I mean that matter functions only within relations with other matter . That is, there is no such thing as an entity/unit//Sign, that is isolate.

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

  List, I think, we can prescind discreteness from continuity, e.g. by supposing the formation of attractors, or coagulation, or reentry (logical or actual loops), but we cannot prescind continuity from discreteness. So everything including thirdness is at first based on continuity, even if it

[PEIRCE-L] LUW Feb 14, 4pm CET - Should We Embrace Impossible Worlds Due to the Flaws of Normal Modal Logic?

Logica Universalis Webinar February 14, 2024 at 4pm CET Speaker: Til Eyinck https://petrarca.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/mitarbeiterinnen/til-eyinck Petrarca Institute, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cologne, Germany Title: "Should We Embrace Impossible Worlds Due to the Flaws of Normal Modal