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

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Helmut Raulien > wrote: > > Gary, Clark, Sung, list, > to make the subject more complicated: We are dealing with the two kinds of > Salthean Hierarchy (Paper "Salthe´12Axiomathes"). The division of object into >

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

Gary F., List, For now just a very few interleaved comments. I think I'll have rather spent what energy I have for contributing to this thread in this post, at least at this time (I'm in the midst of some health challenges, so that by the end of this week I'll have seen two physicians and had two

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] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

After writing the post below, I skimmed through the posts that have appeared in this thread since yesterday afternoon, and it seems that many of them have wandered pretty far off from the topic indicated by the subject line above. I think it would be better to change the subject line when that

Re: [biosemiotics:8987] Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jerry, List, I'm not exactly sure how to answer your question (I'm assuming that it's about the parenthetical comment). Sheaf theory, which appears to be changing to some consideral extent the direction of topological mathematics, uses such concepts as presheaves being *glued* together.

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

Jeff, Your message seems a bit garbled in the middle, but if you're suggesting that some of the trichotomies Peirce mentions in NDTR but does not develop there are developed elsewhere, that seems very likely to me. But how those developments relate to phenomenology on the one hand, and

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

Sung, I repeat, firsts are not structures and structures are not firsts. Firsts don’t permit the sort of relational properties required of structures, though there is a first corresponding to any structure, properly called an icon, but structures are never icons. Structures can exist as

[PEIRCE-L] Diagrams of terms, logical forms and geometry of representamen.

Gary R asked: I'd be interested in what forum members make of any of this, especially in relation to what has already been discussed, and especially in consideration of Gary F's two outlines of the 10 classes and the tree figure which he provided. The difference is profound with respect to the

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

Hello Gary F., List, You raise a few points. Let me respond. 1. You say that my message was garbled in the middle. I've revised it a bit to make the points less garbled and inserted it below. In the revised version, I respond to next two points that you make. 2. Some of the

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

Jeff, (I’m formatting my reply as html, although your posts are in plain text, because I find italics, bolding etc. very useful in explaining difficult points. Actually I wonder why you don’t use that format yourself — ?) I see now that the ‘garbling’ I spoke of caused me to miss the

Aw: Re: [biosemiotics:8987] Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary, Clark, Sung, list, to make the subject more complicated: We are dealing with the two kinds of Salthean Hierarchy (Paper "Salthe´12Axiomathes"). The division of object into immediate and dynamical object, and of the interpretant into its three modes is a compositional hierarchy: The object