[PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions Chapter 4

2014-10-20 Thread Jon Awbrey
Re:Tyler Bennet At:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14779 Peircers, The Peirce I have known for nigh unto the last 50 years is not much in evidence on the Peirce List anymore, so I'll just limit myself to one general observation that I've made before and then hope

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7261] Re: Natural Propositions Chapter 4

2014-10-20 Thread Howard Pattee
At 09:40 AM 10/20/2014, Edwina Taborsky wrote: Howard wrote: That is only a narrow human view of nominalism. I think Peirce's view of Tychasm and Agapism is more radical. He generalizes signs, interpreters, mind, habits, and love to the entire natural world. Edwina: What do tychasm and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7261] Re: Natural Propositions Chapter 4

2014-10-20 Thread Edwina Taborsky
Howard - I think I begin to see your viewpoint but I think you have a very personal definition of some terms. You don't mean to say that 'nominalism existed before humans' - or do you? Nominalism is, by definition, a perspective that exists only within human cognition. It says that knowledge

[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7274] Re: Natural Propositions Chapter 4

2014-10-20 Thread Sungchul Ji
Howard, Edwina, Stan, Gary R, Gary F, Frederick, lists, What I don't understand is why can't we extend nominalism, whatever it is, beyond the human mind to living cells, when Peirce himself extended the concept of Mind to crystals and that of Propositions to non-linguistic things ? Are we all

[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7276] Re: Natural Propositions Chapter 4

2014-10-20 Thread Gary Richmond
List, Sung was responding in the context of about 10 messages in the biosemiotics list where, by the way, I think this discussion should remain (that is, not on peirce-l). I won't copy all those messages, but the last one before Sung's was sent by me and reads: *Howard, * *Semiosis is a process

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7276] Re: Natural Propositions Chapter 4

2014-10-20 Thread Edwina Taborsky
Gary R - I can understand, since you are (to my knowledge) one of the moderators of the Peirce-L list, that you can decide that the discussion some of us have been having only on the biosemiotics list should not be extended to the Peirce-L list. But I don't think that you can decide what the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7276] Re: Natural Propositions Chapter 4

2014-10-20 Thread Gary Richmond
Edwina, I agree with you both that (a) it goes without saying that members of the biosemiotics list should feel free to discuss whatever they wish to and (b) that it would have been helpful to have changed the Subject line from one pointing to the NP seminar. I sent my post to the Peirce forum