RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8690] Re: self-R

John, Just butting in. Quite accidentally happened to open this mail of yours. Quite interesting. The topic I am working on. Left me wondering how this may be connected with the concept on continuity in CSP's later work. - Pointing out any point in a continuous line, means breaking up the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Vol. 2 of Collected Papers, on Induction

List, Jerry, Peirce was interested in relations, right? - So, with a sentence, he reduced it to a relational rhema, like - fought -. This expresses the ralation of figthing. The lines just express a logical "place", which may be be Harry or Peter, or Kirsti or anyone. This rhema is about

Re: [peirce-l] [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8863] The problem with instinct - it's a category

Dear list, I sincerely do find talk about "mind-bodies" basically twisted. A modern division, a split, is thereby taken for granted, taken as the starting-point. - A being, be it a human being, or a bee, should remain as the starting point. Best, Kirsti Clark Goble kirjoitti 15.9.2015

RE: [peirce-l] [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8863] The problem with instinct - it's a category

Stephen, I don't think adding "unity" helps. Unity is already implied in the form of the 'mind-body'. - The problem lies deeper than in wordings. The mind-body problem needs to be solved. Which is not easy. Right now I'm quite busy writing down the solution I have arrived at, using both

Re: [peirce-l] [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8863] The problem with instinct - it's a category

I find Helmut's comments to the point. In terms of CSP's categories, "instincts" do not, as such have a place. - Well, a kind of firstnesslike, but that is it. Nowdays, the quite common understanding of "instict" is different than in CSP's times. Not to forget that HIS understanding differed

Re: [peirce-l] [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8863] The problem with instinct - it's a category

Edwina, You have no right to deny me my short comments. Only the list-minders have the right to do so. Your tone I find angry, aggressive & not agreeable. Now, once and for all, this is the end of my discussions with you. - You may write whatever you wish to the list. But do not ever expect

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - meta-languages and propositions of triadicity

Dear friends, There are two issues I wish to comment. One is "hypostatic abstraction", the other is the title of this thread. It took me quite some time in the past, to get a clear idea of what CSP means with "hypostatic abstraction". - Well, the conclusion I came into, was just the opposite

Re: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

Clark, Thank you very much for your posts on this thread. Greatly appreciated! Also, Neglegted Argument has been my favorite piece since I started with CSP. The question of the reality of God has always seemed to me to be a critical question to pose in front of anything Peirce wrote.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Parker's propositions on the development of CSP's categories of Logic

Jerry, list, I have never found divisions of signs (trichotomies) of much use. And I cannot see how they could work with proposisional functions. So I cannot be of help in your questions. Kirsti Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 16.6.2016 18:25: List, Kirsti: On Jun 16, 2016, at 9:12 AM,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems Of Interpretation - Contrasting the diagrams of ammonia and the handedness of carbon compounds.

Jerry, You wrote to me: JLRC:"My purpose is mainly to align the logics in terms of Tarski’s meta-languages, but I will not address that here." KiM: If and when Tarski is your object of thought, my note is completely irrelevant. JLRC: The meta-languages of interest here geometry, matter,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems Of Interpretation

Jon, list I do remember your three-dimensional visualization of sign relations, Jon. I had no intention of excluding you three-dimensional presentations. I appreciate your work, it just is not my cup of tea. My note to the list was NOT about sign relations, it was about understanding the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - Contrasting the diagrams of ammonia and the handedness of carbon compounds.

Hi Jerry, list Just a quick resoponse, for now: "Most modern logicians operate off of first order logical premise which roughly translate that logic is an algebra and algebra is a logic. Universality of meaning is, somehow or other, exchanged between algebraic symbols (signs) and logical

Re: [PEIRCE-L] How does one justify something like a "completeness" in a logic of vagueness?

Hi Jerry Rhee, You misunderstand (misinterpret) the sentence by CSP, so your questions go all wrong. On should take time to understand properly, before making inferences. CSP talks about "something like completenes". - No use asking "What exactly is complete" The question is absurd.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

List, Jerry, Stephen, It seems to be commonly assumed that CSP created a theory of signs. - Well, amongst other things, he did. - But it was not what he was after. - He was after a theory, or rather a method and methodogy of finding out meanings. By the end of 1800, there was a kind of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

CSP was thoroughly familiar with Aristotle, both his syllogisms and their context in those times. It may be good to remember that Aristotle's works, along all others, were translated into Latin by the time we call the new age. Translations always involve interpretation. Thus what has passed

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Hi, It depends on what you take a syllogism to consist on. The modern interpretation leaves out the ancient Greek understanding of time. As you most probably know, CSP wa occupied with the problem of time as something constantly evolving all his life. (Thus it is of no use to stic into his

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - in Chemistry and Biology FYI

Clark, I agree with your points. - But I did not use the word "necessarily". As long as one stays within mathematics, what you write: " While none of these are in the Peircean arena, I think they fit in rather well. (Inquiry as a continual generation of higher metalanguage in terms of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination, etc.

Clark, An excellent & clear statement. I agree with all points you take up. Kirsti Clark Goble kirjoitti 10.5.2016 00:33: On May 9, 2016, at 1:45 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: I read Peirce primarily for his insights into logic, mathematics, and science, which are considerable

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - in Chemistry and Biology FYI

Jerry, list, My comments are inserted. Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 29.4.2016 16:15: Kristi, Clark, List: On Apr 29, 2016, at 12:05 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: The most common form these problems appear, is in the form of just jumping from "the level of individuals" (be they chemical

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - in Chemistry and Biology FYI

Jerry. Clark, list, Jerry wrote: Of course, things are always more complex than they first appear. I would argue for a completely connected world if my purpose were metaphysical in nature. But, language itself separates the world from its totality into manageable parts. And culture has found

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Topology, the Gamma Graphs, and representations of self

Hi Charles, Jeffrey & others involved in this tread, I skimmed through the whole below, currently writing (amongs other issues) on Moebius stripe & the bottle of Klein. You may not be aware that the latter was a great question to Lévy-Strauss, the famous ethnologist & mythologist. The

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - in Chemistry and Biology

Jerry, list, Your response helped a lot in proceeding towards some answers, hopefully more connecting with your interests & current problems you are seeking to find solutions. (I hope!) First, it now seems clear to me, that your homefield is to be found in naturalistic philosophy. Thus I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mind evolving

Ben, A most interesting & valuable post! I do hope all involved in this discussion will pay attention to this response of yours. Kirsti Ben Novak kirjoitti 16.7.2016 21:00: Dear Helmut and List: Helmut asks: "Can things take habits?" Discussion of Peirce's theory of habit reminds me of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

CLARK GOBLE kirjoitti 4.7.2016 07:53: On Jul 2, 2016, at 5:58 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: KiM: It seems to me you evade Jerry's question, Clark. A very sensible question to me, well worth an answer to the question, not just beside it. CG: I’m not sure I was evading it so much as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The auhor's claim: There is no *distinctly* scientific method

Jon Alan, I fully agree!!! Kirsti Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 20.7.2016 04:15: Stefan, List: You wrote ... It would be much better to teach practicing scientists the philosophy, history and sociology of science. This would be enlightenment in science... The same is true for engineers and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Clark, Jerry R., list, It seems to me you evade Jerry's question, Clark. A very sensible question to me, well worth an answer to the question, not just beside it. As we all know, CSP took himself to be a laboratory minded philosopher, in contrast with seminary minded philosophers. That is,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce, Epistemology and Immortality

Clark, There is a deep problem involved with attepts to give any just epistemological explanations of CSP's views on doubt. He states, for example, that you should not pretend to doubt anythinf you do not doubt in your heart. (This is, of course,pointed against Descartes.) - But 'heart' here

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Triadic Philosophy Works in All Contexts

Stephen, I very good & most relevant quote you provided. Kirsti Stephen C. Rose kirjoitti 3.7.2016 15:00: The reasoning of Triadic Philosophy works in all contexts. This is a remarkable claim in a world where the barriers between disciplines grow higher and it is hard to have discussions

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

Jerry, CSP did use divisions into three, so trichotomies do belong to his philosophy. Only in his latest phase he devoted himself to developing triadicity as his key concept in his theory of the Categories. So, trichotomies of signs, such as icon, index, symbol etc. are OK. But only for the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Sorry Jon. Again. - I definitely never said that I "abhorr definitions". If you do not regocnize an intrepretation here, compared to what I wrote, I'm afraid there is nothing to discuss. - We are not on anything like a same page. Kirsti Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 19.1.2017 16:25: Kirsti,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Jon, You are right about my unhappy choice of word. It was an overstatement, to say the least. Long ago, when you had used "segments" in connection with continuity, It gave me the impression of some lines of thought akin to nominalistic ways. - But you responded with taking a critical stand

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce, Wittgenstein and what cannot be said

One of the most important points of convergence with Wittgenstein and Peirce I find in the note by Wittgenstein when starting his lectures on Mathematics. He opened his lectures by stating: I will not say anything anyone will disagree with. If someone does, I will say something else. (not a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

OK, very interesting. - But not viable to any kind of an answer to the question of the nature of relationship between quality and generality. CSP is just throwing some loose characerizations to the field. What he happened to write (e.g in his notebooks), or even his published papers, were

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Solving problems with definitions and defining is the nominalistic way to proceed. I do not work in the way of presenting definitions. - I work with doing something, with a (more or less) systematic method. - Just like in a laboratory. I have done strict experimental work. And strict up to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between

John F.S., It is always absolutely necessary to communicate with ones contemporary scientific communities. Which is followed by a necessity to use the basic views and terminology they use and can understand. - CSP (in letters to lady Welby) characterized this as throwing a bone to the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Jon S. Not only is continuity the most difficult problem for philosophy to handle, it is also the most difficult problem for mathematics to handle. Taking into consideration the view of CSP that we always have to start with math, then proceed to phenomenology, and only after this try to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Ben, Are there omitted parts in your quotes? Marked by -? Best, Kirsti Benjamin Udell kirjoitti 15.1.2017 20:05: Jon A.S., Kirsti, list, Regarding Peirce about reflected-on qualities as generals, I was basing that on the same text as contains CP 1.427 quoted by Jon A.S. That is "§2.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

I agree! Kirsti John F Sowa kirjoitti 16.1.2017 23:56: On 1/16/2017 3:32 PM, Clark Goble wrote: I think one can still manage how symbols grow. That is consider them bundles of process. The question ends up being what the limits of the symbol are. Of course that becomes a complex topic too. I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Clark, Your wrote: CG: Logically that then has a beginning and end to the symbol. Definitely not so acccording to the logic of CSP. - You are using some other kind of logic, according to which symbols do not grow - on the ground of communities, not just by individuals. You seem to be

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

List, Did CSP ever use as a dichotomy the distincition between ontology vs. epistemology? I think not. That would be against his basic views. This frame just does not fit. Kirsti Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 7.9.2016 00:43: Helmut, List: Peirce's "Neglected Argument" is certainly NOT the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Arbitariness of the Sign / Centenary of the Cours de Linguistique Générale / Ferdinand de Saussure

Dear Jean-Yves Beziau & the list! The one and only linguist, who knew both Saussure and Peirce ' by heart', was Roman Jakobson. He never agreed with the idea of arbitrariness of the sign. He even took the famous 'Cours' compiled by the students of Saussure as a misunderstanding, a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

John, list, Most important points you take up, John. Time-sequences between stories do not apply. - The big-bang is just a story,one on many just as possible stories. Time-scales are just as crucial with the between - issue as are storywise arising issues. There are no easy ways out ot

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

Jon, I could not agree more. Excellent, to my mind. Best regards, Kirsti Määttänen Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 4.11.2016 15:51: Jerry, List, Inquiry begins in Doubt and aims for Belief but the rush to get from D to B and achieve mental peace can cause us to short the integrated circuits of inquiry

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

John, list, Everyone seems to take the Big Bang hypothesis as granted. Still, it is just a hypothesis with meagre, if any evidence. And John, a most interesting question you posed: Does anyone know if he had written anything about embedding our universe in a hypothetical space of higher

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

Dear Jerry R. I can assure you, there was nothing pejorative in my intention in responding to you. I just wished to point out that it indeed is very important to study in detail the exact wording CSP worked with for decades. Especially those wordings he stick up with in his latest years.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear Auke & al. It seems to me that you are on the right tract, but in a way CSP did not share. And going along a tract, wich leads nowhere. Although the main interest of CSP lied in science, his starting point was "babes and suclings", (just google this) As have been mine, even before I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

A most importan note! Kirsti John F Sowa kirjoitti 21.10.2016 20:55: On 10/21/2016 1:09 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: By "scientific causality," do you mean /efficient/ causality (i.e., brute reactions), /final/ causality (i.e., laws of nature), both, or something else altogether? Scientific

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Edwina, Auke, listers, I wish to point out some key issues involved in my earlier post, connected with Edwina's comments 24.10.2016 Edwina Taborsky kirjoitti 24.10.2016 16:51: ET: > "Kirsti, I like your outlines of embryos and the 'firstness' of Feelings. [I think that more research should

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear Auke, I got very delighted by your response! Right now, I have very little time, but I wish to share some of my thoughts on and about it. First: The idea of primordial chaos is very, very popular. Even so popular that one should get suspicios in front of the popularity. It is commonly

Re: [PEIRCE-L] phenomenology of stories

Stefan, Thank you for the information. Good to know. - However, I do not think I'll ever take the trouble of finding these books. With any close-read of texts it is sufficient for a big while to know that laws need an approach of their own. - No hand of a sheriff with any, however

Re: [PEIRCE-L] phenomenology of stories

Hi Stefan, Very interesting! Especially because the author is a lawyer. Still, I doubt I'll have time to read these. Anyway, Husserlian phenomenology is thoroughly different from Peircean phenomenology. They started from a very, very different conception of mind. For starters. Quite

Re: [PEIRCE-L] phenomenology of stories

Stefan, This gets more and more interesting! Please, do provide the details! - I have spent quite a while in moderating my methods of text interpretations for developing a way which works in interpreting law. Very, very different methods are needed, that's for sure. 'Tradition' for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] phenomenology of stories

Most interesting! Thank you Gene. I have been reading Simmel lately. Not been happy with it. But Simmel seems to be quite to the vogue, in Finland that is. Kirsti Eugene Halton kirjoitti 27.11.2016 19:25: Dear Stefan, Interesting. One rarely ever hears of a student of Simmel.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] On esoteric and exoteric Peirce

Jerry, Instead of jumping into conclusions (iterpretations) on what CSP meant, let's (as a first step) take closer look on what you did in the act of writing your response. You picked up a metaphor, used by CSP. In order to understand the meaning of any metaphor (in pragmaticist sense), one

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

Dear John, Jerry R., Thank you very much, John for your brilliant summary on the relation between nominalism and pragmaticism & Einstein and his theorizing. And Jerry, I would recommend a very detailed study of the two formulations by CSP, given in his first Harward Lecture (EP vol. 2)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

John wrote: "Note that Peirce did not use the word 'semantics'. That word was introduced into analytic philosophy by Charles Morris's misunderstanding of Peirce. Carnap loved that word because it gave his nominalism a thin veneer of meaning. It enabled him to define modality in terms of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

A very, very important note this is. - The deepest theoretical problem (to my mind) lies in scaling, which is necessary in order to deal with the very large and the very small. Practical problems with measuring follow suit. They are just problems of time and efforts. - Once there is a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

If Wikipedia is taken as a scientific authority, then the situation is really bad. Kirsti Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 11.12.2016 22:36: Ben, List: On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: According to Wikipedia, the Planck length is, in principle, within a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

For CSP the real was not reducible to existent individuals, be theyindividual facts fould out by measuments in empirical,however strict experimental investigations, OR individual minds, ie. any particular persons, taken as existent individuals. The real, for CSP, revealed itself only 'in the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Clark, How come you say chemists have a "more practical field"??? This I find an amusing note. Is there a rationale behind this note, or is it just a flippant one which cannot be given any grounds for? Kirsti Clark Goble kirjoitti 5.12.2016 19:31: On Dec 5, 2016, at 7:05 AM, John F Sowa

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Helmut, Peirce was opposed to behaviorism in any proper sense, because behaviorism did not exist by his time. It came into being later. Behaviorism came from US, and sweeped over the field of anglo-american psychology later than the span of life of CSP. The roots of behaviorism come from

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Hi all, The string theoty is a legitimate theory, even if (and when)it does not hold. It has paved the way forwards. - Kirsti - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Jon A.S. First: see my recent response to Jon Awbrey. Second: In developing his theory of true continuity, CSP used the basic geometrical notions of a line and a point. (According to his architecture of sciences, which presents not just an architecture of sciences, but more so a method for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between

Jon, The problem, as I see it, has not been a philosphical issue for many, many centuries. In the Middle Ages it was. - But, as CSP noted, by his time it had become a very different question. - By which I mean: No question at all! I do not have time or patience to look up the exact quote by

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Ben, Peircer's qualities of feelings are not 'generals'. When reflected upon they appear vague, which does not have any direct relation with tte philosphical concept of 'general'. Kirsti Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 10.1.2017 06:07: Ben, List: BU: This rule-style of formulation reflects a

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

Is this list about the philosophy of Peirce any more? - Or does CSP only serve as a starting point to presenting any kinds of ideas loosely connected with CSP. The list-minders should set an example. - It does no seem so to me. Best, Kirsti Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 29.12.2016 21:52: Clark,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Theoretical physicists are of course less practiqual minded. But the right point of comparison would then be theoretical chemists. The key point, however, is that neither chemistry nor physics should be taken as equivelants to the buch of people currently practicing the these sciences. That

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

John, I wish to draw your attention to this part in you mail: JFS: ... a theory expressed in discrete signs... This statement presupposes that even signs acting as symbols, are discrete. Written statements are put down in the form of discrete parts. But it does not follow that the

[PEIRCE-L] on first, second and third

List, First, Peirce did not adress questions, which did not arise, or were impossible during his time. Thus Prigogine did not bleong to his agenda. Well, then what is Prigogine about, deep down. What are the resemblances, what are the diffenrencies. In physics, a problem has been how to

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Laws of Nature as Signs

Jon, Whilst I agree with your points on what must be taken seriously, there remains serious problems with understanding understanding. Your approach comes from information theoretical viewpoint. Which relies on bits. Not so human understanding. All information theories rely on a certain

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Jon, The presupposition in your question(s)you do not take up is the presupposition that all signs can and may be (easily) classified. - If you look up some detailed versions of Peirces classifications of signs, and you'll see what kinds of problems I mean. "Our existing universe" does not

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Laws of Nature as Signs

Jon A. Seems valid to me. But it does not answer the quest for understanding. - If you see my point. Kirsti Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 7.4.2017 02:02: Jon, List ... I've mentioned the following possibility several times before, but maybe not too recently. A sign relation L is a subset of a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

John, I found it very interesting that you took up metaphor in connection with "laws of nature". I once got across with a study on metaphors in science with a side note by the researchers that natural scientist often got angry on any hint that they may have been using such. - It was just

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

Jon A., I was attepting to express as understandably as possible. To offer answers to your quest for exactness would take more time than I have at my disposal. - Sorry for that!! Best, Kirsti Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 10.4.2017 21:44: Kirsti, List: I am indeed exploring the hypothesis

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

John, Thanks a lot! A most interesting post. I'll look up your paper. Even though I have approached these questions from a different angle , I wholly agree with your conlusion views on the nature of thirds. And on the arguments offered by Peirce. - It has seemed to me, too, that he did

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Laws of Nature as Signs

Tom,list, Well put, well put, indeed! Also, I wish to remind you all, that CSP did not view lawa of nature as eternally unchangable. To his mind, tehy do change, albeit mostly very, very slowly. Think about climate change. With it very, very slow changes meet changes with other

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Peirce did not use the term "semantics. But he did use the term: "semeiotics". He even gave advice in spelling the word. This was his advice: " see-my-o-tics". Anyone can google this, I assume. If need be. In my view Gary R. is gravely wrong in assuming that CSP was all his life after SIGNS.

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Triads belog to the system of Categories, the hardest part in Peircean philosphy to fully grasp. It is much easier to use only classifications. This appoach involves confining to Secondness, as if it were the only, or even the most important part in his philosphy. - Peirce definitely left this

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Helmut, You wrote: "...eg. what would be the difference between "qualisign" and "icon". First, they are ripped off from different trichotomies (of which one is left out, by the way). Second, these present something arrived at from differing Categorical aspetcs (or perspectives). Without

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Concernig the supplement: Not just continental hybris, to my mind. I agree with Apel on this "something higher". Kirsti Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 4.8.2017 00:12: Supplement: I just have tried to read something on the internet about Apel´s Peirce- reception. Wow, this is interesting. Is

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's own definition of 'information'

A bold interpretation. I wonder whether to quote is enough to give grounds for it. It almost sounds as if stating that the main purpose of CSP was to uphold old, established views. Which is surely not meant to be the message? I do not quite understand what "repurposing" means, especially in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Laws of Nature as Signs

John, list, The invasion of Big Data into social sciences makes critical views on Carnap (& co) utterly important nowadays. Kirsti John F Sowa kirjoitti 24.4.2017 04:34: Helmut, Jeffrey, Jon A, Clark, list, HR Not every triadic relation is categorically thirdness. But which are? That's

RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

List, I did not claim that CSP in any way REJECTED the results of his work with sign classifications. Kirsti g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 5.8.2017 19:52: I've been looking for some evidence which would support Kirsti's claim that "It is a historical fact that CSP left his work on sign

Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Helmut, That is good to know. Thanks. Kirsti Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 5.8.2017 22:09: Kirsti, you wrote: "I find it difficult to answer your questions, Helmut, because I do not have a clear enough idea of what you are aiming at. What is the ground for you interest in CSP? What do you aim to

RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Letters to lady Welby need to be interpreted and evaluated on the basis to whom they were addressed to. Lady Welby was highly interested in sign classifications. Classifications were a dominant topic at the times, in vogue. (Remnants of this vogue are still effective.) - Peirce was explaining

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Jerry, A misunderstanding here. I did not mean all sign classifications in the world. I meant those parts in CSP's work where he developed more and more complex classification systems; and that taken in the context of all his work. - Also, when said: "I have not found (etc...), I meant in

Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Helmut, Todays systems theories were not known by Peirce. Thus he dis not use the TERM (which is just a name for a theoretical concept) in the sense (meaning) it is used nowadays. I have studied some early cybernetics, then Bertallanffy and Luhman in more detail. But I left keeping up with

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Clark understood pretty correctly what I meant with my post: A question of shifting emphasis by CSP. Which to my mind is shown in a shift of interest from trichotomies (and systems of sign classification) into triads and triadic thinking (as a method). On these issues I have written

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Jerry, list, It is a historical fact that CSP left his work on sign classifications aside and proceeded towards other aims. My firm conviction is that he found that way a dead end. - Anyone is free to disagree. - But please, leave me out of any expectations of participating in further

Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 4.8.2017 21:06: Kirsti, you wrote: "Also, with triads, thinking in "parts" does not do. According to my view, that is. Nor do the idea of "containing"." Instead you wrote about: " Categorical aspects (or perspectives). " But, isn´t this a kind of containing or

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

John, Your posts greatly appreciated. But Peirce did write on cyclical arithmetics. With detailed instructions on how demonstrate the rules by experimenting with a pack of cards. Detailed instructions include strict rules on how to achieve a random order with the pack of cards at hand.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

Well, it is well known that CSP was not so very keen on existence. Even though he succeeded in completing his Existential Graphs to his full approval. But on being that was not the case. Being was to him the key to what is real. What was real (to him) was effects. Does belief in God have

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Thank you, John (again) for clearing up the issue with utmost clarity! Gratefully, Kirsti John F Sowa kirjoitti 18.6.2017 16:39: On 6/17/2017 5:45 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: The term "positive" is the word that Peirce uses to describe the character of the philosophical sciences--as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Deely & Apel

Hello Brad, A very interesting theme you have taken on. A challenging one, too. Apel and Deely come from very different traditions. I guess about all listers have read Deely (on Peirce), but none to my knowledge has read Apel (on Peirce). Except me. - I'd like to know if there are some other

Re: [PEIRCE-L] An apology

Gary, list, First: I did not feel offended, I felt surprised. The expertice and authority of John F. Sowa were so clear to me that I could not think of anyone,least John, to take any offence in my stating my view so bluntly. - Which I apologized. After the suprise I do feel offended. I was

[PEIRCE-L] An apology

Dear John, I sincerely apologize for any negative feelings my latest mail addressed to you may have caused. I have been reprimanded by list managers that my tenor and tone are not tolerated. In a democratic list, so I am told. There have been three complaints. Off-list. So I'm told. My

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

Hah. The minute I sent my message on no response, I got John's response. This time, John, I have to say: Wrong, wrong, wrong, You just don't know what you are talking about. - just walking on very thin ice and expecting your fame on other fields with get you through. It is not that some

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Jon, I like your tenor, but do not quite agree. Yes, linguistics has changed just as you say. But logic? In my view, the very grounds of modern logic are groumbling down. But it is an ongoing process, with no predictable end. Now we live in late modern ot early post modern times. Just to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

Gene, The most important message ever in Peirce-list is this one you posted! I repeat: ever! I am literally schocked by the fact, that I am the first to respond. This late. Am I conversing with human beings? - Or just kinds of extensions to automatization of everyday life & "common sense"

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?

Dear listers, I do not think the title of this thread is well-thought. There is nothing such as a "Space-Time Continuum" which could be reasonably discussed about. Even though it is often repeated chain of words. For the first: Continuity does not mean the same as does 'continuum'. - and

  1   2   >