Re: [PEIRCE-L] two kinds of vibration
Helmut, List: HR: "To make our ideas clear", a word should have only one meaning, Peirce agrees, especially when it comes to scientific (including philosophical) terminology. CSP: As to the ideal to be aimed at, it is, in the first place, desirable for any branch of science that it should have a vocabulary furnishing a family of cognate words for each *scientific *conception, and that each word should have a single exact meaning, unless its different meanings apply to objects of different categories that can never be mistaken for one another. (CP 2.222, EP 2:264, 1903) The different categories here are metaphysics, where existence is defined as reacting with other like things in the environment, and logic, where existence is defined as belonging to the universe of discourse. Unfortunately, in this case, they *can *be (and often are) mistaken for one another. Nevertheless, we really just need to be clear about the context and then employ or avoid the word accordingly. HR: Reality has two parts, nonexistent, and existent reality. There are two kinds of existence: Reactions and habits/laws/possibilities. No, when we are talking about reality, we are in the realm of metaphysics, where there is properly speaking only one kind of existence--reactions. Habits, laws, and possibilities are not properly described as having existence in this context. As Gary F. noted, possibilities (1ns) and habits/laws (3ns) have modes of being that are different from existence (2ns). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 6:35 AM Helmut Raulien wrote: > Jon, List, > > Altough I see your explanation, I am not completely happy with two > different definitions of "existence", or two different universes of > experience. "To make our ideas clear", a word should have only one meaning, > is what I feel. Otherwise there would be a possibility of rethorical moves > to bend any discussion in one´s direction, or refute any opposing argument. > Different ranges of a word´s meaning: Ok, sounds not false, but does not > soung general or fundamental enough to me. But, as I said, not false > either. So the composition-classification model is not opposing the > different-range-model, but just another model to get a better grip at the > topic. With composition, a subset is a part of, and with classification it > is a kind of the superset. I still feel that we can say: Reality has two > parts, nonexistent, and existent reality. There are two kinds of existence: > Reactions and habits/laws/possibilities. This may even be in accord with > two different universes of discourse: Maybe existential graphs (connection > wit "And") are classificatory, and entitive graphs (connection with "Or") > are compositional. Both kinds of graph have their different kinds of sheet > of assertion/universe of discourse. As I said, this post is not meant to > oppose yours, just trying to show another angle of view. > > Best Regards, Helmut > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
RE: [PEIRCE-L] two kinds of vibration
Helmut,
In Peirce's terms, existence is one of three modes of being. Many philosophers,
he says, “recognize but one mode of being, the being of an individual thing or
fact, the being which consists in the object's crowding out a place for itself
in the universe, so to speak, and reacting by brute force of fact, against all
other things. I call that existence. … My view is that there are three modes of
being. I hold that we can directly observe them in elements of whatever is at
any time before the mind in any way. They are the being of positive qualitative
possibility, the being of actual fact, and the being of law that will govern
facts in the future.” (CP 1.21,23, 1903)
Gary f.
https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs
-Original Message-
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Helmut Raulien
Sent: 10-Sep-22 07:35
To: Jon Alan Schmidt
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] two kinds of vibration
Jon, List,
Altough I see your explanation, I am not completely happy with two different
definitions of "existence", or two different universes of experience. …
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the
body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] two kinds of vibration
Jon, List, Altough I see your explanation, I am not completely happy with two different definitions of "existence", or two different universes of experience. "To make our ideas clear", a word should have only one meaning, is what I feel. Otherwise there would be a possibility of rethorical moves to bend any discussion in one´s direction, or refute any opposing argument. Different ranges of a word´s meaning: Ok, sounds not false, but does not soung general or fundamental enough to me. But, as I said, not false either. So the composition-classification model is not opposing the different-range-model, but just another model to get a better grip at the topic. With composition, a subset is a part of, and with classification it is a kind of the superset. I still feel that we can say: Reality has two parts, nonexistent, and existent reality. There are two kinds of existence: Reactions and habits/laws/possibilities. This may even be in accord with two different universes of discourse: Maybe existential graphs (connection wit "And") are classificatory, and entitive graphs (connection with "Or") are compositional. Both kinds of graph have their different kinds of sheet of assertion/universe of discourse. As I said, this post is not meant to oppose yours, just trying to show another angle of view. Best Regards, Helmut > Gesendet: Samstag, den 10.09.2022 um 00:42 Uhr > Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" > An: Peirce-L > Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] two kinds of vibration > > Helmut, List: > > HR: At first, this looks logically false: Two non-identical things. each > one being a subset of the other. > > > That is not what I said. The point is that existence, reality, and being > are not coextensive. Whatever exists is real, and whatever is real has > being, but there are realities that do not exist (possibilities and > habits/laws) and beings that are not real (fictions). A better analogy is > that every mouse is a mammal and every mammal is an animal, but there are > mammals that are not mice and animals that are not mammals. > > HR: Peirce´s solution in the case of reality and existence is, that there > are two kinds of existence. > > > Not two *kinds *of existence, but two *definitions *for the word > "existence." In Peirce's mature metaphysics, it means "reacting with other > like things in the environment" and thus applies *only *to the constituents > of his Second Universe of Experience. It is in this sense that existence > "is a special mode of reality." However, in logic, it means "belonging to > the universe of discourse" and thus can be used for the constituents of *any > *of the three Universes of Experience. It is in this sense that numbers and > laws of nature (for example) can be said to exist. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Sep 9, 2022 at 4:06 PM Helmut Raulien wrote: > > > Jon, you wrote: "Yes, Peirce describes existence as a subset of reality > > and reality as a > > subset of being.". > > > > At first, this looks logically false: Two non-identical things. each one > > being a subset of the other. So far, your resp. Peirce´s solution in the > > case of reality and existence is, that there are two kinds of existence. I > > have another, maybe not contradictional, solution: > > The subset relation can reverse, if applied to different system > > hierarchies. Example: Mouse is a subset of mammal, and mammal is a subset > > of mouse. In the system hierarchy "composition from traits", mammal is a > > subset of mouse, because being a mammal is only one trait of a mouse. In > > the system hierarchy "taxonomic classification", mouse is a subset of > > mammal. This reverse subset relation in composition versus subsumption > > (classification) goes back to Stanley N. Salthe. > > > > Best Regards, Helmut > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu > . > ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu > with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
