[PEIRCE-L] Peirce in his own words as Ebook

Torkild, I, too, want to thank and congratulate you, Bent, and everyone else involved in this project; I look forward to reading each contribution. Also, as an aging member of our worldwide Peircean community, I want to thank Mouton for giving each of us an eBook author's copy. Because i can enl

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

(Undistorted Figure 1 is attached.) Clark wrote : "There are many problems with this (exactly where to (073114-1) place the laws of physics for example). . . ." I wonder if the MPM category theory would be helpful here. According this theory, the laws of physics can be viewed as the (mat

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

6.220 is from the Logic of Events, 1898- and that section refers, as John was talking about, to the nature of potentiality. - Original Message - From: Clark Goble To: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:27 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics i

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Clark wrote: "But there can be signs of mind and not matter. (073114-1) That’s more the issue I’m getting at." Can there be any signs of mind independent of matter or unsupported by material mechanisms of some sort ? If so, what would be an example of that ? With all the best. Sung ___

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > I agree that the laws are generals and not material; they couldn't be > general AND material, for materiality is existentially local and particular. > However, following Aristotle, I consider that the general law (Form) is > embedded

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > It is rather common to assume some space/time substrate with extension as a > necessary substrate for any property. So much so that it’s rather common for > many from the scientific community to even recognize it as an unestablished > assu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

I'll reply to a few comments; thanks for your input. - Original Message - From: Clark Goble To: Peirce-L Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 6:48 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for 1) CLARK: Lots of comments so I’ll just pick a few p

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 3:32 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > Do you deny that DNA is matter ? Does it not represent an organism? > > Do you deny that > > “Semiosis is a material process enabled by the action of the(073114-6) > irreducible triad of object, representamen and interpretant. > Hence,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Lots of comments so I’ll just pick a few posts and include my comments in a single post. My sense is that there’s a lot of miscommunication going on because it’s not clear when people are following Peirce and when they aren’t. > On Jul 31, 2014, at 1:35 PM, John Collier wrote: > > I suppose t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

It is the penumbra of everything within the mind that you experience prior to putting a word to it that attests to the independent existence of "uninterpreted phenomena". I think it is for this reason that the writing of words is always a sort of slaying of what was there. This is a temporal event.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

1) Edwina wrote (073114-1), (-3), (-5), (-8), (-9) and (-10): " . . . if you choose to use the Peircean semiosis (073114-1) differently from that outlined by Peirce, then don't use the same terms. Use your own. And don't try to tell us that your use is Peircean when it isn't." Edwi

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Gary f, This topic has come up before, partly because of my scepticism about icons. Joe was helpful to me in working out a resolution I could live with. I suppose that you are familiar with Sellars’ “Myth of the given”. He basically denies the independent existence of uninterpreted phenomena. C

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Edwina wrote (073114-1), (-3), (-5), (-8), (-9) and (-10): “ . . . if you choose to use the Peircean semiosis (073114-1) differently from that outlined by Peirce, then don't use the same terms. Use your own. And don't try to tell us that your use is Peircean when it isn't.” Edwina, I be

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

John, in order to “make sense” (i.e. to convey any information in the Peircean sense), it must function both iconically and indexically, as a dicisign. A legisign has to be habitual, but an index cannot be habitual, because it must designate something here and now: an individual, not a general. Thi

Fw: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Sung - don't divert from the issue by personalizing my criticism. I'm not saying that no-one can understand a sign unless they have read as much Peirce as I have. I'm saying that you, who has not read Peirce and yet who constantly chooses to use Peircean terms in your outline of semiosis, and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Thanks Edwina. That answers my question. *@stephencrose * On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Stephen- I'm not sure what you mean! Peirce was, as he himself said many > times, an Aristotelian, in the sense of his understanding that the '

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Another question. Doesn't chance operate in the world of physics, that is to say in the real world as we experience it. The second law of thermodynamics describes part but not all of what is happening. The other element is what we call chance. How the two manage to function together and what it lea

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Clark, I don’t think something can be a sign unless it is habitual. How could it make any sense otherwise? John From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: July 31, 2014 10:16 PM To: Søren Brier; Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for On Ju

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Stephen- I'm not sure what you mean! Peirce was, as he himself said many times, an Aristotelian, in the sense of his understanding that the 'Form', or habits-of-formation, were generals/universals and were embedded within the particular instantiation. That is, he was not Platonic - where the For

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

"Peirce was Aristotelian" in this context? Or entirely? I agree with your note but this confuses me. *@stephencrose * On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Sung - don't divert from the issue by personalizing my criticism. I'm not > saying t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > > My I add a few thoughts? I agree that sign are reals, but when they manifests > as tokens their Secondness must enter the world of physics and thermodynamics > must apply. It is work to make signs emerge in non-verbal communication or as

[PEIRCE-L] Biosemiotics and Peirce

I think this is the basic distinction between the Representamen, the habits of formation, which are 'real' but not existentially particular - and the existentially particular unit or token (the Object and Interpretant) - and the relation between the two modes: the habit and the existential. This

Re: SV: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Søren wrote: "Even to produces thoughts and feeling demands work. (073114-1) That would be a biosemiotic view (but one that we have not discussed much). But I think you are correct in saying that Peirce did not do any work on this aspect of sign production." I am glad to learn this fact abou

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Sung - don't divert from the issue by personalizing my criticism. I'm not saying that no-one can understand a sign unless they have read as much Peirce as I have. I'm saying that you, who has not read Peirce and yet who constantly chooses to use Peircean terms in your outline of semiosis, and to

Re: SV: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

I would agree with Søren, except that I find the grammar a bit odd. I suppose that their could be signs that are not manifested, but I would call these possible signs. The possibilities are real, and are most likely thirds. I don't think that a possible x is an x. So I find it a bit odd to talk a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Edwina wrote (073114-1): “Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's (073114-1) original works, rather than, as you do, relying on secondary writings about Peirce and on cherry-quotes of his works.” You have been repeating this admonition whenever you want to criticize my views

SV: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Dear Clark and list My I add a few thoughts? I agree that sign are reals, but when they manifests as tokens their Secondness must enter the world of physics and thermodynamics must apply. It is work to make signs emerge in non-verbal communication or as language from ones feeling and thoughts.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

> On Jul 31, 2014, at 2:37 AM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > Yes. That is what I am saying, and I too distinguish between material > process of semiotics and semiotics in general. My working hypothesis is > that > > "Physics of words/signs is necessary but (073114-2) > not suffic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Sung, it would help if you would actually read Peirce's original works, rather than, as you do, relying on secondary writings about Peirce and on cherry-quotes of his works. You wrote: "Written words are representamens and spoken(073114-7) (and understood) words are signs." N

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

The word "sign" (S) can appear on both sides of the equation that defines its meaning, i.e., it is recursive: "S = the irreducible triad of S, O, and I" (073114-4) where O is object and I is interpretant. To avoid possible confusions due to this recursivity of the word "sign", I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

Clark wrote: " . . . my sense is that you are after semiosis (073114-1) as a process while thermodynamically at the appropriate scale and simplification a system in equilibrium isn’t undergoing measurable change and thus can’t be conceived of as a changing process. If that’s all you’re