that his concept of distinction is triadic. The last double issue of Cybernetics Human Knowing (2013) is about interpretations of Spencer Brown. See our home page. After summer we will publish more articles about that.
best
Sren
Fra: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sendt: 18
in the same context of discussion.
More, later, if this gets through ...
Jon
Helmut Raulien wrote:
Dear Peircers,
I think, there is one assumption that hinders the understanding of semiotics:
The triad of representamen-object-interpretant suggests, that there be only one
object implied. I think
-versus-woman narrative ignores the original source of the violence that a child first learns from their primary nurturer.
sj
-Original Message-
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Monday, 2 June 2014 8:05 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Realworld
Hi Gary,
Cognitions determined by previous cognitions, I would say, refers only to indices and symbols. But what about icons? They transport their meanings within themselves, with no previous cognition (knowing, that the smoke comes from a fire, or what a words conventional meaning is) needed, I
:[PEIRCE-L] REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN on Peirces Questions, i.e. icon
GCM: (Cf. EP 1: 226, 1885) Maybe Peirce has a tendency to be over precise. That is why I like to anchor my statements about him in his most open, nave, first versions and then go under the microscope. I am quoting here his first
TO HELMUT RAULIEN on Peirces Questions, i.e. icon and Destiny?
There are myriad individuals who are not by our standards fully formed, normal, etc. I will never forget a visit in Winston-Salem to a facility literally filled with almost identical human beings all of whom were condemned
: Between mind-controlled behaviours versus insinctive behaviours) take place.
Best,
Helmut
Gesendet:Donnerstag, 12. Juni 2014 um 19:11 Uhr
Von:Eugene Halton eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu
An:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Betreff:RE: [PEIRCE-L] REPLY TO HELMUT RAULIEN on Peirces
Dear Stephen, List,
Gary Richmond wrote, that your triad differs from Peirces. when I first read about your assignment of the triad reality-ethics-esthetics to the categories, I had the impression that it is different from my understanding. But now I think, that assignment of elements of a triad
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:
Dear Stephen, List,
Gary Richmond wrote, that your triad differs from Peirces
are obscured or confused.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:
Dear Stephen, List,
Gary Richmond wrote
Dear Sung, Jerry, List,
is it ok to interpret Sungs statement as follows?
Formally means in its role as an object, and ontologically means: What it is (as an entity) in possible other contexts. One example: The agreement, that money is a value-exchange medium. Money is a value-exchange-medium
I dont think, that materialism and idealism are monisms, but, that monism is a hypothesis, that says, that both, ideas and matter, are derivates of the same thing (genotype or so), of which none is more fundamental than the other. What makes them different derivates on one hand, and combines them
Hi,
i have not read the text by Peirce, but wonder, what social might have to do with logic, because many, if not most social structures are collusions (common illusions), such as myths, that are rather made up to create an impression of logic, where there is none, in order to cope with
of deductive predictions, the prospect of error correction is much of the main point, to check the conclusions (predictions) against observations.
Best, Ben
On 6/27/2014 10:30 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Hi,
i have not read the text by Peirce, but wonder, what social might have to do with logic
fascinates me. I think of Peirce from time to time and his relationships. We do not share much I am sure but some abrasiveness perhaps and an odd sense that things are more OK for more reasons than many seem t see. Cheers, S
@stephencrose
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul
Hi Jon, List,
Instead of embodied in systems, I think, logic is embodied in the biggest possible system, the universe, as a part of its thirdness (structure, continuum). Other aspects of this thirdness, I would say, are natural laws and constants. For subsystems like organisms or social systems,
Supplement: There is a logical fallacy in my text: If the universe has a superstructure (logic), it cannot be the biggest possible system. Ok, so it is not.
Hi Jon, List,
Instead of embodied in systems, I think, logic is embodied in the biggest possible system, the universe, as a part of
: Helmut Raulien
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 2:46 PM
Subject: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] Whats The Use?
Supplement: There is a logical fallacy in my text: If the universe has a superstructure (logic), it cannot be the biggest possible system. Ok, so it is not.
Hi Jon
to test out as we proceed.
Regards,
Jon
Helmut Raulien wrote:
Hi Jon, List,
Instead of embodied in systems, I think, logic is embodied in the biggest
possible system, the universe, as a part of its thirdness (structure,
continuum). Other aspects of this thirdness, I would say, are natural
I would say, it is not an argument, because there is no because or therefore in its message (no syllogism), but only a statement of combination. In the sign relaition it is a combination of the outer shape, the shapes of the elements, and the dispersion oft he elements in the outer shape. So the
Supplement: Please replace in my text dicisign with sinsign, and dicent with dicisign. I only knew the word dicent for dicisign, and thought, that dicisign was a synonym for sinsign, because of the ending sign.
I would say, it is not an argument, because there is no because or therefore in
I suspect, that in this quote Peirce meant sign for representamen, and by writing whether they be... he meant whether their object relation was This is inaccurate by Peirce. Edwina writes more accurately, and is right, I think: With Sign (first letter capital) she means the whole sign, and
But, if chemical icons are a direct consequence of physical laws, that would mean, they can be reduced to them. In a prebiotic world, they would not be icons, but only likenesses not interpreted. I think, an icon is an interpreted likeness, and interpretation of a likeness (icon) requires an
Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to the Isis: Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless. Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and direction to
, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic military-industrial-academic establishment.
Eugene Halton, Bereft of Reason, University of Chicago Press, 1995, pp147f.
---
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:
My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad
for reasons which I wont go into here. But to attain that power, requires massive brutality and killing. And massive repression, where a huge section of the population are reduced to slavery.
Am I my brothers keeper?
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Helmut Raulien
To: peirce-l
force when people act in concert through various means. The demythologizing and acceptance of our responsibility to know what is good and what not is the project of this century as folk from Nietzsche to Nozick have suggested.
@stephencrose
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Helmut Raulien
Dear Jon, Sung, List,
Sung, you have asked,, whether logic is only human or also cosmological. But the cosmos, I think, has been working according to logic before life and humans had been there. On the other hand you, Jon, wrote, that logic is a special kind of ethics, and ethics is is a
Hi! I do not think, that my point of view or my argumentation has anything to do with celestial spheres or bearded father figures. I am a left wing anarchist liberal communist feminist anticapitalist antifashist and so on. I am against any authorority, except the authority of God. And, what this
in its nature opposes communism, fascism and liberalism. But being left wing promotes communism and fascism. Liberalism promotes capitalism. And anti-authority rejects Peircean Thirdness and Mind.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Helmut Raulien
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Friday
-
From: Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net
To: Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 10:20 PM
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Cosmos
Thread:
JBD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15230
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org
Supplement: Now there is one thing, I am not clear about, that is the meaning of the adjective normative. To me- might be, because I am not a native speaker of English, normative sounds somewhat like dogmatic. I think, that proper (in my understanding of proper) science is nothing but inquiry.
Dear John, List,
in your definition of pragmatic ethics you have included: in order to achieve the admirable or the good in itself that is determined by a prior consideration of esthetics. Now I dont see, what might be left for the other kind of ethics, the prescriptive ethics. Especially, if
Dear Jon, Stefan, list
Jon, you understand german? well, i still think, that these rules of inferment or logic are objects of scientific inquiry or investigation. So it is not the science itself, that is normative, but it is the rules, discovered by science, that are- but their normativity is
recourse
to their stocks. But the logical statement per se is more abstract than
that. Its substance must be extracted from the sol of its mother liquor
if Apollo be saved from deriving while intoxicated by Dionysian phantoms.
Cheers,
Jon
On 2/4/2015 3:49 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Hi Jon, List,
you
Dear Jon, List,
understanding mathematics is very hard for me. I remember, that for understanding integral and differential calculation, i had to calculate many exemplaric problems, before I understood, what it is good for, and how it works. Same with thermodynamics: How does a carnot process
expressions,
but logic conceived as normative semiotics is an inquiry oriented
toward more focal aims.
Regards,
Jon
On 2/12/2015 6:15 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, List,
I was thinking of comparing the sentence C thanks A for B with a square root:
The square root of a positive number has either
as normative semiotics is an inquiry oriented
toward more focal aims.
Regards,
Jon
On 2/12/2015 6:15 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, List,
I was thinking of comparing the sentence C thanks A for B with a square root:
The square root of a positive number has either a positive or a negative result
Hi! Does physical mean natural or material? I think, that it means natural, although in medicine it is often used for affairs of the body in contrast to affairs of the mind (psychical). In Greek physica means science of the nature. Maybe this is only a term problem?
Helmut
Gesendet:Samstag,
Hi! I think, denotation is a present action, like a representamen is denoting an object, or like somebody is denoting something. Connotation is not an actual action, but a trait a term has due to its history, or due to the understanding of the person who hears or reads the term-denoting word-
Dear Stephen, Stephen, List,
Stephen C. Rose, I like your poem very much. I think, that The heart is new means, that it is reconnected to something very old, namely to a universal principle, like the term religion means reconnection. It is also new, because it (the new heart) newly is letting go
Dear Catherine, List,
All I want to put in is my opinion, that there are two kinds -or basic parts- of metaphysics, clearly distinguished: One is experience (axioms), and the other is tautology (mathematics). Ok, mathematics too is based on axioms, but axioms are nothing but themselves, and
Supplement: Patient and agent for me are not a dyad, but parts of a triad, consisting of: Patiens, Agens, Effect. Neither of these three is thinkable or senseful with one of them missing.
Dear Stan, Peirceans,
Dyadicity or triadicity? My hypothesis about dyadicity is, that there are two
Hi!!
Agent, Patient, and Effect are a triadic affair, call it relation, call it what you want, but they are triadic. If there is no effect, there was no activity (no Agens). If there was nothing to be the subject, there was no patiens. If there was no effect, there were neither both of them. If
in the pragmatic maxim. In effect the fruits by which we are known.
Bookshttp://buff.ly/15GfdqUArt:http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts:http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 7:59 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:
Sounds right to me. Maybe the question, which is firstness
. Icon Index Symbol Creator, Incarnation, Gift of the Spirit to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Bookshttp://buff.ly/15GfdqUArt:http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts:http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Sung, Lists,
I so
Hi Sung, Lists,
I so far rather think, that firstness is associated to representamen, and secondness to object. So I propose the following assignment, though just in the context of the christian God (because in christian religion there is already a triad, the trinity, which, I think, is ancient
with a capacity for mindful human action in light of the encounter of 1 and 2.
Bookshttp://buff.ly/15GfdqUArt:http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts:http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Stephen! But why not assign Father, Son and Holy
of consciousness that I would associate with a capacity for mindful human action in light of the encounter of 1 and 2.
Bookshttp://buff.ly/15GfdqUArt:http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts:http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Stephen! But why
, the borne, the balanced, which, with due stability, is form as structure as cause. I dont mean to sound melodramatic, but thats the two cents worth that keeps me interested in philosophy.
Best, Ben
On 5/6/2015 9:04 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Hi!!
Agent, Patient, and Effect are a triadic affair, call
Gesendet:Dienstag, 14. April 2015 um 21:51 Uhr
Von:Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de
An:biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Betreff:[biosemiotics:8316] Re: A unified theory of the AMOUNT of
Dear Sung, Stan, Edwina, List,
because it is about systems, information, and mind, I would like to utter my
and tools, which we can try out in various applications. In this regard we must be wary of a certain ontologizing tendency that tends to get us stuck on only one way of seeing things.
Regards,
Jon
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
On Apr 4, 2015, at 5:09 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de
List,
not having read Shannon and Weaver, my concept of entropy now relates only to the physical world, that is realworld systems with their system space being the real dimensions x, y, z, resp. longitude, broadness and altitude. And I think, that Jons definition is correct. The other kind of
Their Relatives : 9
( http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/06/19/relations-their-relatives-9/ )
Please let me know if my reading of your sense is right or not.
Regards,
Jon
On 6/18/2015 6:51 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Supplement: On the other hand, even if interpretants are not an own class
systemic formulation.
Best,
Harry Procter
-Original Message-
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net]
Sent: 19 June 2015 20:40
To: Helmut Raulien
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Survey of Relation Theory . 1
Helmut, List,
I wasnt completely sure about the meaning of your
-adic relation cannot be reduced to 1-adic and/or 2-adic relations. But a 4-adic relation can be reduced to relations not higher than 3-adic. So, obviously it has nothing to do with naturalism and so on.
Best,
Helmut
Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net wrote:
On 6/21/2015 3:31 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote
://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Sign_relation )
Regards,
Jon
On 6/22/2015 10:24 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, List,
yes. And I just think that I must add, that what I have written below is likely
to be wrong: Somewhere in the internet I have just read, that Peirces reduction
hypothesis has been proven
at issue,
or any subject matters, are adequately covered by monadic predicates,
in their proper, non-vacuous use, and when it is time to call in the
resources of higher adic relative terms.
Regards,
Jon
On 6/20/2015 2:42 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, Harry, List,
Is ontologism really the problem
is how we decide when the phenomena at issue,
or any subject matters, are adequately covered by monadic predicates,
in their proper, non-vacuous use, and when it is time to call in the
resources of higher adic relative terms.
Regards,
Jon
On 6/20/2015 2:42 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, Harry
Supplement: On the other hand, even if interpretants are not an own class (or is the word domain?), their representations in a mind may well be, and certainly are. So- triadicity is rescued for me, I now think.
Dear Jon, Peircers,
I am wondering whether, mathematically spoken, there really
Dear Jon, Peircers,
I am wondering whether, mathematically spoken, there really are 3-adic relations in semiotics. An interpretant is a 2-adic relation (between representamen and object). But are interpretants an own class? Or are they a common class with representamens (syntactic domain)- or
consideration:
Triadic Relations
( http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Triadic_relation )
Sign Relations
( http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Sign_relation )
Regards,
Jon
On 6/22/2015 10:24 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, List,
yes. And I just think that I must add, that what I
Sung, Lists,
I think, in medieval time it was integrated, because it all was but abduction (they even burnt witches because of abductive inferment). Disintegration took place because science invented/explored wishful complete induction, and deduction. Now, as abduction is firstness, induction
Oops- I had forgotten how to look at it: www.signs-in-time.de
Hi Everybody! I have started again writing a semiotical systems theory, after having made quite a lot of mistakes. This time again, I would not claim that it is rid of mistakes- but why not try again. After all, the core is still
Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:
Oops- I had forgotten how to look at it: www.signs-in-time.de
Hi Everybody! I have started again writing a semiotical systems
Stephen,
How should one know whether he/she would be offended without having read it? I think, critique is always justified, about anything. The only offending is that what sometimes comes along with the critique and is more than critique: For example striking back by applying similar methods to
, if I read you correctly, rest assured that I only strive to state things as they are. However, it is a necessary warning to include. I dont want to create the impression that I am trying to trick anyone into reading something that they ultimately wont want to read. sj
From: Helmut Raulien
, rest assured that I only strive to state things as they are. However, it is a necessary warning to include. I dont want to create the impression that I am trying to trick anyone into reading something that they ultimately wont want to read. sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent
... the part that is missing from The Patriarchy myth is non-trivial:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/transcending-the-matriarchy/
sj
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 July 2015 6:12 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Peirce List; biosemiot
.
Sung
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:14 PM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:
Sung, Lists,
I think, in medieval time it was integrated, because it all was but abduction (they even burnt witches because of abductive inferment). Disintegration took place because science invented/explored
.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Helmut Raulien
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: biosemiotics ; PEIRCE-L
Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2015 2:58 PM
Subject: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Can we integrate physics, biology, and philosophy ?
Thank you, Edwina! Sorry for my mistake: When in reality a wolf
is itself reversed! Time isnt physically connected to an event.
And I dont know what your reference to the categories implies; I think that you often have a confused understanding of the categories - but- I wont go into them.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Helmut Raulien
To: Edwina
and irreducibility that arise in semiotics.
But I will have to break for dinner first ...
Jon
On 7/1/2015 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, List,
I am referring to the second link of yours: Relation reduction, the second
example with A (Ann), B (Bob) u (you), i (I), resp. the representations of them
to distinguish different
uses of various letters, especially I and i, but if this much
is clear we can move on to discuss the two types of reducibility
and irreducibility that arise in semiotics.
But I will have to break for dinner first ...
Jon
On 7/1/2015 3:45 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Jon, List,
I am
Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Helmut Raulien h.raul...@gmx.de wrote:
Stephen,
I like very much the book by Jean Liedloff: The continuum concept. By this book and other
Maybe we could split the topic, and talk about primal nurturer and mammal instincts in the biosemiotics list, and about myths in a Peirce-related way in the Peirce list?
Best, Helmut
Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote:
Agree about broad and do not think it is forced if the
wrote:
Helmut - try EP:2, pp 480-481. And the CP, Vol. 8, ..all the parts to Lady Welby.
See also an interesting article:
http://see.library.utoronto.ca/SEED/Vol6-1/Farias_Queiroz.pdf
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Helmut Raulien
To: Sungchul Ji
Cc: biosemiotics ; PEIRCE
. They seem to be very different conceptions that are associated with very different kinds of phenomena were trying to explain.
--Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
From: Helmut Raulien [h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent
to explain.
--Jeff
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
From: Helmut Raulien [h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2015 1:37 PM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: [biosemiotics:8672] Re: self-R
The difficult thing
,
John
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: May 25, 2015 5:53 PM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Aw: [biosemiotics:8676] Re: self-R
Jeff, Lists,
John Collier wrote, that memory is not the same as same
. I am much surer of the ecology case.
The papers might help if you have time, but the basics are above.
John
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: May 26, 2015 6:17 PM
To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Cc: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject
:46 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Ben Novaks Book is Peirce-related, because it is about abduction, and how abduction was misused by Hitler. Edwina had mentioned many other historical, economical, and other causes for this ideology. This was Peirce related because it was about the fixation of belief
Ben Novaks Book is Peirce-related, because it is about abduction, and how abduction was misused by Hitler. Edwina had mentioned many other historical, economical, and other causes for this ideology. This was Peirce related because it was about the fixation of belief. Instincts for example
not cease to be wrong because the majority shares in it. Democracy, to be just, requires a constitution and the rule of law, set up as created by men, and capable of change by men, but applicable to all.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Helmut Raulien
To: Ozzie
Cc: Edwina Taborsky
Ben Novaks Book is Peirce-related, because it is about abduction, and how abduction was misused by Hitler. Edwina had mentioned many other historical, economical, and other causes for this ideology. This was Peirce related because it was about the fixation of belief. Instincts for example are
Hi! This is all very confusing to me. Language, words, versus reality: Is this the real contradiction? Is truth, expressed with language/words something that has been there in the far past: "In the beginning there was the word" (logos) (Bible), or something in the far future: "Final interpretant"
ral term: In this case perhaps a universal teleology or telos?
Best,
Helmut
"Clark Goble" <cl...@lextek.com> wrote:
On Oct 23, 2015, at 1:21 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
I thought, that "final interpretant" had something to do with truth
List,
I consider as follows the difference between "object" in common understanding, and the Peircean object: In common sense, an objects main trait is its permanence, and also its spatial limitation. So it is an entity, something that is, i.e. exists (limited in space, but not in time). But
List,
I consider as follows the difference between "object" in common understanding, and the Peircean object: In common sense, an objects main trait is its permanence, and also its spatial limitation. So it is an entity, something that is, i.e. exists (limited in space, but not in
of a thing towards the universal "interaction-condition", in accord with your response.
Best,
Helmut
"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
See my responses below.
- Original Message -
From: Helmut Raulien
To: tabor...@primus.ca
Cc: g...@gnusystems.ca ; p
. My main point was to amplify the anthropocentric "being-called-condition" of a thing towards the universal "interaction-condition", in accord with your response.
Best,
Helmut
"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
See my responses below.
-
o any communication." in my previous post to
". . .dyadic interactions cannot lead to any communication."
Thanks.
Sung
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L]
-
From: Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?
To: Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de>
Cc: frances.ke...@sympatico.ca, Gary <g...@gnusystems.ca>, Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.
2
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
You are right: It is random, i.e. meaningless. I had not focused on "meaning", but on "
I'm looking at this wrong, feel free to set me straight.
Regards,
Tom Wyrick
On Oct 26, 2015, at 4:15 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Sung, List,
And is a physical interaction a triadic Sign? Eg: A photon hits an atom: The photon and the atom (tok
://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
You are right: It is random, i.e. meaningless. I had not focused on "meaning", but on "representation" (thirdness): I thought
something. Usually do.
"... chance ... a mathematical term to express with accuracy the characteristics of freedom or spontaneity." Peirce: CP 6.202
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Hel
Goble" <cl...@lextek.com>
On Oct 23, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Hi! This is all very confusing to me. Language, words, versus reality: Is this the real contradiction? Is truth, expressed with language/words something that has bee
ity, if reality really is like that. I also dislike Nietzsche. I rather like Kant. But now I am out of arguments- read and write you all later!
Best,
Helmut
"Clark Goble" <cl...@lextek.com>
On Oct 23, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:
Gary f.
} The map is not the territory. [Korzbyski] {
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
From: Helmut Raulien [mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de]
Sent: 25-Oct-15 07:16
List,
I consider as follows the difference between "object" in common understandi
1 - 100 of 1018 matches
Mail list logo
