[PEIRCE-L] Peirce's ethics

[Claudio Guerri]

Dear Etwina, Gary, List
It has been a long time since I last wrote to the List, however, I still 
receive the corresponding information and from time to time I find 
precise indications on the possibility of deepening in some Peircean 
concept in my extensive library on Peirce.


Coming from architecture and design disciplines in general, I am 
interested in being able to use the Peircean approach to better 
understand the design project (as a semiotic process) and to be able to 
take practical design decisions... and the same with respect to 
qualitative market research... another discipline with a necessary 
practical scope.


However, in both cases it is a matter of developing to the maximum the 
aspects of the /enabling Firstness/: the /design/ and the understanding 
of the problem... a difficult subject if there are any... or… our world 
would be a little better than what we have.


I consider Peirce's /ethics/ (2ness) to be directly related to his 
training in chemistry where every element in Mendeleev's table must 
necessarily be precisely nominated: H=1 cannot be confused with Pb=207. 
This is not the case with other matters such as color where there may be 
a subtle variation, unnameable with precision, in a [blue] or a [red].


However, this /ethical concern/ (Peirce?) entails a serious 
contradiction with respect to the Peircean triadic semiotics proposal 
where the main task should not be the positive essence but the 
inter-relational construction of a semiotic concept or process (Lizska 
wrote something about this).


I believe that the exegesis of Peirce's work is still necessary given 
the vastness and the difficult access to his writings. However, 
semiotics, as a discipline with pretensions of /scientific methodology/ 
(Magariños de Morentin) does not deal with any exegesis, but with 
cognitive-semiotic processes that are important in order to understand 
something about any subject and to be able to make decisions of 
different kinds, for example:


1. /to make possible/ the formal description of the logic of a 
theoretical concept in order to improve it, change it or discard it 
(1ness);


2. to analyze a concrete product or behavior to /determine/ its relative 
economic validity (2ness); and


3. to allow the analysis of any socio-cultural-political value in order 
to make a /decision/ (Althusser) coherent with the /needs/ (Peirce) of a 
given time and context (3ness).


On the other hand, while the proposal to take the classification to 128 
or hundreds of thousands of different sign-subsigns is absolutely 
logical, I wonder if there is a single person in the world who has 
developed that immense semiotic process applied to any object, problem 
or concrete case. Probably AI programs will be able to do it... but will 
anyone really be able to understand and review it for practical purposes?


This is why I have developed the /Semiotic Nonagon/ as a practical tool 
for qualitative analysis in sufficient and recursive logical 
sub-aspects: 3, 9, 27 or 81. Although, as Liszka says the SN “is not 
strictly Peircean”, 40 years of its use in academia with doctoral theses 
and professional practice as a qualitative market researcher have long 
demonstrated its efficacy. Thanks to Gary Richmond I found out yesterday 
that there is a long list of articles on this topic both in English and 
Spanish: https://uba.academia.edu/CGuerri 
This allows me not to go into further 
details about this ‘strictly’ semiotic tool. Because, it seems to me (as 
far as I know) worth noting that Peirce NEVER performed any semiotic 
analysis using his own proposed classification of signs, except for his 
unhappy decision to repeatedly name only the weather vane as an index. 
And since, as Saussure explains, verbal language develops in a 
sequential line (which prevents us from saying more than one stupid 
thing at a time), every object, behavior, or concept is always a 
complete triadic and always a complex SIGN... of which we may name one 
aspect anyway, as basic rhetoric teaches us.


All the best
CL

*Dr. Arch. Claudio F. Guerri*
Consultant Professor
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Home address: Gral. Lemos 270 (1427) Buenos Aires – Argentina
Telefax: (0054-11) 4553-7976
Cell phone: (0054-9-11) 6289-8123
E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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;  

[PEIRCE-L] Panel on Semiotic Exploration of Ecology at the 2024 Warsaw IASS-AIS World Congress

[Claudio Guerri]

Dear Friends and colleagues, we have some excellent news to share with you!

The network "SPACE SEMIOTICS [Design, Architecture, Urbanism, 
Landscaping]"https://significant.design/subscribe 
<https://significant.design/subscribe>is organizing a *panel 
*titled:*Semiotic Explorations of Ecology (in Design, Architecture, 
Urbanism, Landscaping)*(Isabel Marcos & Claudio Guerri) this year within 
the framework of the *16th IASS-AIS World Congress devoted to/Signs and 
Realities/, 2-6 September 2024 in Warsaw, Poland.*


**The call is open until the 15th April 2024*, you can submit your paper 
here:**https://www.semcon2024.com/abstrakty* 
<https://www.semcon2024.com/abstrakty>*

*

*How the registration process works:*

*1. You pre-register without paying.*

*2. You get your registration ID (RegID).*

*3. With your RegID you can submit your paper abstracts until 15 April 
2024.*


At the end of the panel, we will include a round-table to discuss the 
unresolved problems of*/Signs and Realities/*,*/Ecology in 
Design/*and*/Design/*and*/Morphology/*in general. With this call we are 
asking all interested scholars to participate in this round-table and to 
propose their own point of view on applied semiotics.


We will finally meet in person!

Isabel Marcos & Claudio Guerri

*Description of the panel proposal:*

Ecology, when examined from a semiotic perspective, reveals itself as a 
complex reality, intertwining tangible environmental phenomena with 
theoretical, physical and symbolic representations. This manifestation 
possibilities invites us to explore the interconnections between 
semiotics, design, architecture, urbanism and landscaping. Thus, 
ecology, connecting the tangible aspects of the environment to the 
different semiotic constructions shape our understanding and interaction 
with this reality.


*1. Semiotics in Environmental Communication:*Explore how semiotic 
systems contribute to the communication of environmental issues.


*2. Semiotic Analysis of the Ecological Crisis:*Investigation of 
semiotic representations of the ecological crisis in different discourses.


*3. Ecological Language and Technological Innovation:*Study of the 
creation of a specific semiotic language to discuss ecological issues, 
with an analysis of the impact of technological innovations.


*4. Semiotic Ethics in Design:*Explore the ethical implications of 
semiotics related to growth in the fields of design. How do signs 
contribute to the formulation of new ecological ethics in design?


*5. Semiotics in Bioclimatic Architecture:*Examine the role of 
bioclimatic architecture and how the signifying elements of this 
approach are used to create the maximum ecological impact of natural 
resources.


*6. Urban Semiotics and Environmental Policy:*Examining how new 
ecological practices in the urban context impact environmental policies. 
What is the ecological significance of these urban practices and how do 
they shape environmental policies?


*7. Landscape Semiotics and Ecological Impact:*Study of sign usage in 
vegetal, urban, and architectural landscapes, taking into account their 
ecological impact. How does landscape semiotics influence environmental 
awareness and sustainable practices?


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at 
https://cspeirce.com  and, just as well, at 
https://www.cspeirce.com .  It'll take a while to repair / update all the links!
► 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] Should we start a new email list (was Peirce's contributions to the 21st c

[Claudio Guerri]

List,
Of course, we are post-Peirceans! How could we be pre-Peirceans or even 
just Peirceans...!!!
this pretentious behavior, the gratuitous aggression and the silence of 
others is the reason way I left writing to the List some years ago
"Some *'literalists' *think we should leave the forest as it is.Every 
time they get in the way, which keeps happening, there's a big problem." 
(RM; emphasis mine)
And ET insists in this direction by pretentiously stating "I'm beginning 
to think that the Peirce-List is not equipped to handle the exploration 
of Peirce and his analytic framework in the 21st century", apparently 
*she *is...???
Peirce himself was aware of the limits of his possibilities, like quoted 
by JS with CP 5.488 and CP 2.1.
But apparently there are still some that want us to stick to the 
misconception that "the weather-wain is an index"... instead of a 
complex sign.
Already after more than 150 years of the first writings by Peirce we are 
not able to move on... like it happens with the Bible... or with The 
Capital... and here we are!


Hope that a creation of a new List will overcome this retrograde 
positions that don't help anyone... not even the sacred memory of Peirce 
himself.

All the best
Claudio

sowa @bestweb.net escribió el 15/10/2021 a las 19:02:

List,
On Thursday, I sent the note below to Peirce-L.   I received some 
strong positive comments and suggestions offline, but complete silence 
from the people who send most of the notes to Peirce-L.    For 
example:  "As for the natural extensions of Peirce's thought, even 
when they agree closely with his principles, they are rejected [on 
Peirce-L] as post-Peircean"
I interpret those responses as evidence that we need n email list that 
is dedicated to the kinds of topics that dominated the Peirce 
Centennial Congress in 2014.  That was a very exciting conference on  
research that builds on Peirce's work and relates it to developments 
in the century after Peirce.   As Peirce frequently emphasized, the 
meaning of any  sign is its implications for action in the future.  We 
live in Peirce's future, and our actions today depend critically on 
the developments in the century after Peirce.
I don't believe that we should reject Peirce-l, but we should have 
another email list that relates Peirce's ideas to the issues of 
today.  I would encourage subscribers to Peirce-L to participate in 
both lists.  I'll send another note tomorrow..

John

*From*: "sowa @bestweb.net" 
*Sent*: Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:39 PM
*To*: "Peirce-L" 
*Subject*: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's contributions to the 21st century
Robert, Edwina, List,
The passages Robert quoted show that Peirce admitted that his system
was a work in progress.  We could add his remark that phaneroscopy was
still a "science egg".
CSP:  I am, as far as I know, a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in
the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic, that is, the
doctrine of the essential nature and fundamental varieties of possible
semiosis; and I find the field too vast, the labor too great, for a
first-comer.  I am, accordingly, obliged to confine myself to the most
important questions.  (CP 5.488)
CSP:  All that you can find in print of my work on logic are simply
scattered outcroppings here and there of a rich vein which remains
unpublished.  Most of it I suppose has been written down; but no human
being could ever put together the fragments.  I could not myself do
so.  (CP 2.1)
RM:  we must make, collectively and in the long run, a rational
representative construction of Peirce's work that is communicable with
a minimum of effort.  To reach this goal, we must not fall into a
dialogue of the deaf.  We are also backwoodsmen in the traces left by
Peirce; faithful to his spirit there are several of us on this list
who follow and develop some of these traces.  We find them
particularly relevant because we have new tools.  Some literalists
think we should leave the forest as it is.  Every time they get in the
way, which keeps happening, there's a big problem.
ET:  Thank you Robert, for this analysis.  But I'm beginning to think
that the Peirce-List is not equipped to handle the exploration of
Peirce and his analytic framework in the 21st century.  After all -
some of us have been trying for years to introduce current scientific
and other research areas [linguistic, AI, societal, economic] and
explore how the Peircean framework, in different terms, is being used
to examine these fields.  We've been met with a refusal to engage in
any discussion and/or, an open almost horror of such an approach.
That is an issue that should be considered.
John

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

[Claudio Guerri]

Edwina, List,
I think that this is the first time that I don't agree with you...
already two times in the last days.

1. "semiotics has nothing to say about such an analogy"
If the Peircean semiotic has nothing to say, then we should close the List.
I think that exegesis of Peirce's work should not be the only task of 
the List.
Peircean Semiotic can help to think more carefully in any kind of 
research (why no not Art History), something that the 
Saussurean/Greimasean Semiology can not do except for the verbal language.


2. "this is getting into a complex over-intellectualized outline of what 
is actually a simple, basic analogy"
NOTHING is a simple, basic (automatic) analogy (that apparently 
everybody is able to reach)... or the world would be a better place to 
live in.
'Die Neuigkeit' of a Nativity with refugees can not be considered a 
simple event. At least anthropological, sociological, and psychological 
very complex socio-cultural aspects are involved and the sister of Peter 
is trying to give a reason-way of that new unusual event.
The Peircean triadic semiotic proposal is in itself the most complex and 
important analytical tool available today (not considering the Semiotic 
Nonagon as a consequential practical device).


I receive 'normaler Weise' negative dismissing generalizations, I would 
prefer to know a concrete criticism, a better approach than that which 
is possible with the SN.

Anyway, Edwina, I admire your constant commitment with the List.
All the best to all
Claudio

PS: I have sent a .GIF with the scheme of the SN, have you got it? 
Because below it is blank.



Edwina Taborsky escribió el 29/12/2017 a las 13:24:


Claudio, list:



My own view is that I think that this is getting into a 
complex over-intellectualized outline of what is actually a simple, 
basic analogy. As I see it, none of this - what can certainly be an 
enjoyable intellectual exercise for the academic mind - enlightens us 
any further than an immediate visual observation of 
the simple analogy  between the two images of Refugee Families.




Edwina


On Fri 29/12/17 11:11 AM , Claudio Guerri claudiogue...@gmail.com sent:

Dear Peter, Edwina, List,

Even without a concrete image about the fact, we can imagine what
was going on, and since everything is a sign, and every sign can
be analyzed triadically, and since every aspect of a sign is also
a sign, the Semiotic Nonagon is a way of considering the
always-complex taxonomy and the interrelations at the same time.

What follows is a very quick and incomplete approach the sign:
refugee’s nativity in Trondheim. All very interesting comments
written on the List can find a relative place in the SN. For
example: Eugene Halton 28xii17 explains various interesting
aspects of the sequence “symbols grow”, but the narrative lineal
(Saussurean) sequence of the verbal language, gives the impression
of a positivistic outcome: one absolute/complete meaning (let me
exaggerate a bit)… the SN shows that the sequence 7-4-1 has also
consequences in 8-5-2 and in 9-6-3 that are interesting
interrelations for an historian.

I think that the most important proposal of Peirce is not the
taxonomy of the different aspect itself, but the interrelation and
the role of each aspect in relation to the rest.

On behalf of this original subject, my quick outcome is very
general, but it can be completed and corrected by the historian
that really knows about that singular event and then, eventually,
make some conclusions...


nativiy

Table 1: this is the empty skeleton of the Semiotic Nonagon
(semiotic device for “design thinking”). The SN is a tool to
organize how much I know about something.


A summary description of the 9 interrelated ‘boxes’

a) Using the sequence “symbols grow”

7. Form of Value (Legising)Here we can analyze the actual cultural
context in which the problem appears as a social necessity. In
this case the cultural context is Trondheim, Norway, could not be
Argentina, we don’t have refugees… yet… Could this event take
place also outside Trondheim, in Sweden, in Italy…?

4. Form of Existence (Sinsign)Here we can analyze Norway,
Trondheim, the Parrish, the refugees… all the singular material
facts involved. This concrete material context allows the growing
of a new idea, a new concept in FF produces a new need in FV… or
vice versa: a new intuitive feeling in a culture, due to a change
in the material context of FE, allows, eventually, the
construction of a new theoretical concept (but this last step is
not necessary conscious or explicit: we can operate cancer, but we
don’t know yet what is really is).

1. Form of Form (Qualisign)Here we can analyze all theoretical
knowledge related to the concepts of nativity, family,
representation, refugees, Christianity, etc e

Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term

[Claudio Guerri]

Mein lieber Helmut, List,
again answer between the lines with >>>
(this was taught to me by T.A.Sebeok just at the beginning of e-mails)

Helmut Raulien escribió el 27/03/2017 a las 13:14:

Claudio, List,
 So it is a bit paradoxical: On one hand we should be aware, that we 
are carrot-chasing donkeys, on the other hand we should not abandon 
the carrot chasing projects, inquiry. And we must respect other 
donkeys who are chasing different carrots.

>>> EXACTLY!!! with no offense to donkeys and carrots...
and with no offense to thousands of years of inquiery in which all 
scholars where traying to chase the DO-carrot.


And, for not thinking that there are alternative carrots, we should 
believe that there is only one carrot of each kind, that is to say too 
that the carrots exist.

Best,
Helmut
>>> I could agree with this, if you say "one carrot of each kind" but 
only for not more than 5 minutes...

Let as hope that we are able to THINK seriously.
All the best
Dein
CLaudio


 27. März 2017 um 14:11 Uhr
 "Claudio Guerri" <claudiogue...@gmail.com>
Edwina, Helmut, List,
I think that a very good aspect of Peirce's proposal is that there is 
no 'THE TRUTH' anymore.
Signs can only construct other signs (images, texts, speeches,etc.), 
perhaps, sometimes, "a more developed sign" (CP 2.228).
But never a definitive 'final explanation'... and this is very good 
for us: humans!!!
So, there is no sense for 'religious' fights, because everything is 
only a little aspect a bigger whole, which can be considered the 
'Dynamic Object'.
We don't need to "achieve a true representation of a fact", because it 
IS "changing all the time".
It is enough if we can figure out a good explanation for our time, 
hoping that we will enlarge the concept tomorrow.
Art, Architecture, Design in general is only possible because of that 
fact: we can only construct an Immediate Object, one after an other... 
endlessly...
and that is exactly the chance to exist, and to be artists, 
architects, designers, composers, poets, etc., etc...
if the inquiry don't need anymore to be endless... then, we will be 
also definitively out of work.


To Edwina: "We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic 
object or our interactions with it." (quote)

You will probably agree that we can only change the Immediate Object
we can never grasp anything of the Dynamic Object without transforming 
it at the same time in an Immediate Object
the Dynamic Object is like "the carrot in front of the donkey" (I 
don't know if this is also an English expression), we will never reach 
it... happily...


All the best
Claudio

Helmut Raulien escribió el 26/03/2017 a las 15:12:

Claudio, Edwina, List,
I wonder whether the two kinds of truth are exactly the same as
the two kinds of object. When two people talk about a common
concept of a fact, then the dynamical object is the common concept
as it exists outside of the talk (the sign). But this dynamical
object is not the truth-as-the-fact. Though it is the
truth-as-another-fact: The fact that the common concept exists and
is like it is.
The common-concept-as-a-fact changes, even due to this one sign.
So it is hard to achieve a true representation of a fact which is
changing all the time. I guess, that the only facts or dynamical
objects that donot change, are metaphysical laws, like axioms, or
deductions that have these axioms for premisses.
That is why I doubt the theory by Peirce, that truth or a final
interpretant can always be achieved or even just approached by
(perhaps even endless) inquiry: It is like a crawling lizard
hunting a leaping frog.
Besides changing facts, and metaphysical (eternal) facts, there is
a third kind of fact: A fact that is an event-as-it-has-happened,
or something that has been in a certain state in the past.
I think, that also this kind of truth cannot always be achieved by
endless inquiry, because there might be information missing due to
non-complete documentation.
So I guess, that Peirces truth theory about endless inquiry merely
applies to metaphysical facts.
Or when the inquiry goes much faster than the change of fact, or
when the documentation is complete...
Best,
Helmut
 26. März 2017 um 16:48 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:


The FACT that the content of the immediate and dynamic object are
different indeed 'makes us just humans' but I'd say that it makes
us 'humans'. That is, I'd remove the 'just' from the phrase. That
means that our cognitive capacity, our capacity to learn, to 'have
knowledge' means that we, with that capacity for reasoning and
analysis, can think about that dynamic object; can think about our
immediate object - and, the three interpretants.

Without such a 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

[Claudio Guerri]

John, Clark, List,
answers/comments between the lines with >>>

John F Sowa escribió el 27/03/2017 a las 12:59:

Clark and Claudio,

Clark

I think my point about modal realism is more that connection
between universals and particulars. Does he make that connection
with mathematics early on? Again I don’t know. It’s one thing to
speak about the nature of mathematics as possibilities and quite
an other to speak about the relationship of mathematics to
particulars. The old “why is the universe so mathematical.”


I would relate two of Peirce's points:  Mathematics is necessary
reasoning.  And all necessary reasoning consists of drawing (or
imagining) a diagram and making observations about the diagram.
Therefore, everything we can understand is limited to the kinds
of diagrams we are able to invent and apply.  Every universal is
a specification for some kind of diagram, and every particular
is something we classify by relating it to some diagram.
I'm using the word 'diagram' in a very broad sense that includes
all kinds of images or icons in any sensory modality.

>>> I agree completely on this point.

Then the
distinction between nominalism & realism depends on the way you
interpret the specification:  Is it just a verbal agreement, or
is it a law of nature that is independent of anything we may say?
>>> Do you mean the LAWS OF NATURE, or just what we think that laws of 
nature are?
who is saying which are the laws of nature? As far as I know there are 
very different points of view...
So, I would not care too much about the 'real' LAWS OF NATURE, but about 
which is the best explanation for my purposes of research, inquiry, 
professional practice, or whatever...
and if the day comes that they are not good enough, I will change for a 
better explanation...
some time ago, the earth was supported by four elephants on turtles, 
etc... Today we have an other 'better' idea... what about tomorrow?
For me, the problem is to workout the IO, the best we can... the DO is a 
carrot...


Therefore, the knowable universe is limited to everything we can
imagine, and mathematics can analyze anything we can imagine.
(This point is independent of the nominalist-realist debate.)

Claudio

Signs can only construct other signs (images, texts, speeches,etc.),
perhaps, sometimes, "a more developed sign" (CP 2.228).


Yes.  And every kind of sign begins with an image (icon),
and every sign constructed from other signs is a diagram.
Therefore, all reasoning begins with perception of external
images and continues with internal images (diagrams).  Higher
cognition consists of constructing and examining diagrams.

>>> I agree completely.
there is a very nice explanation about the concept of diagram by Gilles 
Deleuze "Pinutra. El concepto de diagram" Buenos Aires: Cactus2007. I 
could not quickly find an English version. It's about some lectures by G 
Deleuze in 1981.


The simpler constructions are called "common sense", and the
more disciplined constructions are called logic or mathematics
or the many kinds of -ologies.

Claudio

I think that a very good aspect of Peirce's proposal is that
there is no 'THE TRUTH' anymore.


But it's misleading to say that -- because all the "fake news"
people will take that as justification for their outright lies.

>>> On the contrary, everybody has to check twice... before 'believing'...
I am sure that you would no dare to explain to me what happens in 
Argentina with our new government... or?


Peirce's version is more general and nuanced:

It is easy to speak with precision upon a general theme.
Only, one must commonly surrender all ambition to be certain.
It is equally easy to be certain. One has only to be sufficiently
vague.  It is not so difficult to be pretty precise and fairly
certain at once about a very narrow subject.  (CP 4.237)


This is the answer to both extremes:  those who seek absolute
certainty and those who claim that truth is irrelevant.
John

>>> I would NEVER say that truth is irrelevant!!!
I only insist in the convenience for inquiry and for 'designing', 
thinking, etc. to consider an explanation like something that can be 
thought around again and again.

All the best
CLaudio



-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term

[Claudio Guerri]

Edwina, Helmut, List,
I think that a very good aspect of Peirce's proposal is that there is no 
'THE TRUTH' anymore.
Signs can only construct other signs (images, texts, speeches,etc.), 
perhaps, sometimes, "a more developed sign" (CP 2.228).
But never a definitive 'final explanation'... and this is very good for 
us: humans!!!
So, there is no sense for 'religious' fights, because everything is only 
a little aspect a bigger whole, which can be considered the 'Dynamic 
Object'.
We don't need to "achieve a true representation of a fact", because it 
IS "changing all the time".
It is enough if we can figure out a good explanation for our time, 
hoping that we will enlarge the concept tomorrow.
Art, Architecture, Design in general is only possible because of that 
fact: we can only construct an Immediate Object, one after an other... 
endlessly...
and that is exactly the chance to exist, and to be artists, architects, 
designers, composers, poets, etc., etc...
if the inquiry don't need anymore to be endless... then, we will be also 
definitively out of work.


To Edwina: "We would have no capacity to change both that dynamic object 
or our interactions with it." (quote)

You will probably agree that we can only change the Immediate Object
we can never grasp anything of the Dynamic Object without transforming 
it at the same time in an Immediate Object
the Dynamic Object is like "the carrot in front of the donkey" (I don't 
know if this is also an English expression), we will never reach it... 
happily...


All the best
Claudio


Helmut Raulien escribió el 26/03/2017 a las 15:12:

Claudio, Edwina, List,
I wonder whether the two kinds of truth are exactly the same as the 
two kinds of object. When two people talk about a common concept of a 
fact, then the dynamical object is the common concept as it exists 
outside of the talk (the sign). But this dynamical object is not the 
truth-as-the-fact. Though it is the truth-as-another-fact: The fact 
that the common concept exists and is like it is.

The common-concept-as-a-fact changes, even due to this one sign.
So it is hard to achieve a true representation of a fact which is 
changing all the time. I guess, that the only facts or dynamical 
objects that donot change, are metaphysical laws, like axioms, or 
deductions that have these axioms for premisses.
That is why I doubt the theory by Peirce, that truth or a final 
interpretant can always be achieved or even just approached by 
(perhaps even endless) inquiry: It is like a crawling lizard hunting a 
leaping frog.
Besides changing facts, and metaphysical (eternal) facts, there is a 
third kind of fact: A fact that is an event-as-it-has-happened, or 
something that has been in a certain state in the past.
I think, that also this kind of truth cannot always be achieved by 
endless inquiry, because there might be information missing due to 
non-complete documentation.
So I guess, that Peirces truth theory about endless inquiry merely 
applies to metaphysical facts.
Or when the inquiry goes much faster than the change of fact, or when 
the documentation is complete...

Best,
Helmut
 26. März 2017 um 16:48 Uhr
 "Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:


The FACT that the content of the immediate and dynamic object are 
different indeed 'makes us just humans' but I'd say that it makes us 
'humans'. That is, I'd remove the 'just' from the phrase. That means 
that our cognitive capacity, our capacity to learn, to 'have 
knowledge' means that we, with that capacity for reasoning and 
analysis, can think about that dynamic object; can think about our 
immediate object - and, the three interpretants.


Without such a capacity, we would be unable to do anything other than 
mechanically react. We would have no capacity to change both that 
dynamic object or our interactions with it.


Edwina Taborsky
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.

http://www.primus.ca

On Sun 26/03/17 10:22 AM , Claudio Guerri claudiogue...@gmail.com sent:

List,
forgive me for jumping in only very shortly
but...
I agree that that there can not be "alternative facts"
but for sure, there are only alternative interpretations.
And both concepts of immediate and dynamic object are a very clear
explanation of that difference that makes as just humans...
All the best
Claudio
Helmut Raulien escribió el 25/03/2017 a las 20:05:

List,
In common language the word "truth" is used for two different
things: The fact and it´s representation (the truth
independent of observation, and the truth as represented-
correct representatrion). In philosophy it mostly is only used
for the representation, and means a correct representation of
a fact.
With one exception: Having looked at Wikipedia: "

Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term

[Claudio Guerri]

Edwina, List,
I agree with you...
but, by putting 'just' I meant we are 'just' humans and not God 
(something that I wanted to avoid to say)

If God exists... He would know the FACT by REAL truth
All the best
Claudio

Edwina Taborsky escribió el 26/03/2017 a las 11:48:



The FACT that the content of the immediate and dynamic object are 
different indeed 'makes us just humans' but I'd say that it makes us 
'humans'. That is, I'd remove the 'just' from the phrase. That means 
that our cognitive capacity, our capacity to learn, to 'have 
knowledge' means that we, with that capacity for reasoning and 
analysis, can think about that dynamic object; can think about our 
immediate object - and, the three interpretants.


Without such a capacity, we would be unable to do anything other than 
mechanically react. We would have no capacity to change both that 
dynamic object or our interactions with it.


Edwina Taborsky
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.

http://www.primus.ca

On Sun 26/03/17 10:22 AM , Claudio Guerri claudiogue...@gmail.com sent:

List,
forgive me for jumping in only very shortly
but...
I agree that that there can not be "alternative facts"
but for sure, there are only alternative interpretations.
And both concepts of immediate and dynamic object are a very clear
explanation of that difference that makes as just humans...
All the best
Claudio

Helmut Raulien escribió el 25/03/2017 a las 20:05:

List,
In common language the word "truth" is used for two different
things: The fact and it´s representation (the truth independent
of observation, and the truth as represented- correct
representatrion). In philosophy it mostly is only used for the
representation, and means a correct representation of a fact.
With one exception: Having looked at Wikipedia: "Truth": I would
say, that the redundancy theory uses the term for the fact,
otherwise "truth" would not be redundant (tautology, ok.).
I would say, that "truth" in the sense of the fact is
semantically redundant, because a fact is one of the things of
which there can only be one. I think, there is only one person in
the world who claims that there may be "alternative facts".
Examples:
"It is the truth, that Alice and Bob have married": "Truth" means
the fact, and is redundant as a term, because you might as well
just say: "Alice and Bob have married".
"Paul told the truth when he said that Alice and Bob had
married": Fact, redundant, because to tell means to speak about.
"About" is the bridge between representation and fact, adresses
the fact. The sentence can be said like: "Alice and Bob have
married, and Paul has told that".
Though the redundancy is not complete regarding the connotations:
The first version of the statement implies the suggestion, that
Paul does not always adress facts correctly (tell the truth),
which the second version does not imply.
"Paul spoke the truth when he said that Alice and Bob had
married": representation, not redundant. The truth here is not
the fact, but what Paul spoke.
Anyway, I guess it is very dangerous, that there are two
completely different things which may so easily be conflated and
confused, because they share the same term. Eg. the said person
who claims alternative facts is a danger.
I guess, that language in general is somewhat blurry about the
distinction between representation and the represented. But in
the case of the term "truth" it is a major problem, leading to
confusion and misconceptions, even ideologies: Ideologies work
with forged "facts", and are only able to do so, because the term
"truth" is not clear. If there were two words for the two things
(representation and represented), then it would be much more
difficult to establish myths and conspiracy theories, which both
are necessary for ideologies.
I had thought about proposing to call the two types of "truth"
dynamical and immediate truth, but this is confusing, I guess,
because a dynamical object may be an immediate truth. Or
"trueness" and "truth"? I dont know.
Best,
helmut







--

*Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri*
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270
1427 BUENOS AIRES
Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895
Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123
E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com <mailto:claudiogue...@fibertel.com.ar>


-
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] Dynamic/Immediate Object and Determination/Causation

[Claudio Guerri]

Gary, Jon, List,
I have not been following everything lately...
but IO (or Semiotic Object) and DO are two important concept for designers.

By the way I find that it is possible to understand:
FIRSTNESS as monadic
SECONDNESS as diadic and
THIRDNESS as triadic

And the Dymamic Object is exactly what allows all kind of designers 
(graphic, industrial, architects, or whatever...) to exist.
If the day will come in which the DO is completely semioticized 
(something like an enormous IO), then... there will be no sense of 
designing anymore, you will only need to choose between ALL possibilities.

But don't worry... this will never happen.

All the best
Claudio

--

Prof. Dr. Arch. Claudio F. Guerri
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Home address: Gral. Lemos 270  (1427) Buenos Aires – Argentina
Telefax: (0054-11) 4553-4895 or 4553-7976
Cell phone: (0054-9-11) 6289-8123
E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com







On 19/08/2016 22:58, Gary Richmond wrote:

Jon, list,

I hope some of the points I made were helpful in sorting this all out. 
You wrote:


​JS: ​
Given the association of both virtuality and interpretants with 
Thirdness, is it worthwhile at least to consider describing 
interpretants as virtual vs. actual vs. habitual?


​At the moment I don't think so, since, as Esposito wrote, virtuality 
is but "a special cae of Thirdness." You concluded:


GR:  ... it really was rather difficult even for Peirce to avoid
saying that a matter of 3ns (or for that matter 1ns) 'is' such and
such.


​JS: ​
"Is" does not strike me as problematic, since it is just the verb "to 
be"; and all reality has Being, even if it does not exist.  So it does 
not bother me to say that "there is Objective Reality" like it does to 
say that "Objective Reality exists."


​I did not state that well ('is' was meant as a kind of shorthand, 
and, as such, it most certainly did fall short!) Of course you're 
right that "all reality has Being, even if it does not exist." I 
should have said that Peirce sometimes speaks of reality as 'existing' 
(I hope I come upon an example I can offer soon).


On the other hand, the phrase "Objective Reality exists" is 
undoubtedly problematic and I doubt that Peirce ever said anything 
like that.​


Best,

Gary R


Gary Richmond*
*
*
*
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt 
> wrote:


Thanks, Gary.  More good points.

As I have hinted, immediate vs. dynamic object is clearer to me
than immediate vs. dynamic vs. final (or emotional vs. energetic
vs. logical) interpretant.  My impression is that it was also at
least somewhat clearer to Peirce himself.  The fact that he used
these (and other) different terminologies for the three
interpretants, and that there is a longstanding and ongoing debate
over whether these two are the same or different trichotomies,
does not help matters.  Given the association of both virtuality
and interpretants with Thirdness, is it worthwhile at least to
consider describing interpretants as virtual vs. actual vs. habitual?

GR:  ... it really was rather difficult even for Peirce to
avoid saying that a matter of 3ns (or for that matter 1ns)
'is' such and such.


"Is" does not strike me as problematic, since it is just the verb
"to be"; and all reality has Being, even if it does not exist.  So
it does not bother me to say that "there is Objective Reality"
like it does to say that "Objective Reality exists."

Regards,

Jon

On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Gary Richmond
> wrote:

Jon, Clark,

I would tend to strongly agree with Clark that the
immediate/dynamic division is useful exactly for the reasons
he gave,

But it seems to me that there is something even more important
to consider in this matter of 'virtuality'. Turning now to
Esposito's article, while it is certain that in one place
Peirce "contrasts actuality (/actualiter/), habituality
(/habitualiter/), and virtuality (/virtualiter/) (CP 5.504),
and in another refers to "Firstness as "virtual variety"
because it is "full of life and variety." [. . .] So it may be
fruitful to suppose that virtuality is an essential character
of the universe," yet Esposito will argue throughout the
article that virtuality is a variety of 3ns, that  it is not
1ns. For example, he writes:

"Virtual states, for Peirce, are generated at every phase of
life, wherein Thirdness rules. They comprise a linked duality,
and so also a triadicity. "

"A general theory of virtuality may 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: How do Peirce's categories best fit the study of the arts?

[Claudio Guerri]

Jon, Adrian, List,
I think that "PURE aesthetics" is only an analytical wishful thinking...
aesthetics can not be considered /per se/, outside of ethics and logic
syntactics exists, also, only together with semantics and pragmatics
aesthetics is only a first of a second and a third
considered as a sign it can also be considered triadically
and as a "social practice" (Althusser), aesthetics can be considered 
divided in a "theoretical practice", an "economical practice" and a 
"political practice"
we can not only consider the pure theoretical aspect, but also a 
practical and a strategical aspect...
so, we have to consider aesthetics, also as a social-cultural habit of a 
concrete society and time context, that will have always a concrete 
ethic and logic


On the other hand, "materiality, experience and representation" (Adrian) 
is not a genuine triad for a [work of art]...
'materiality' is directly related to secondness, to a concrete 
actualization of an artwork;
'experience' is ambiguous, could be considered as theoretical knowledge 
(1ness), or an instrumental capacity (2ness), or as a social-cultural 
experience by the artist;
and 'representation' can be related to theoretical knowledge as math or 
geometry, graphic languages, Gestalt, etc. (aspects of 1ness), or it can 
be related to a concrete capacity, skills, of using those knowledges for 
the production of an artwork (aspects of 2ness), or it can be related to 
what is represented (aspects of 3ness)...


I can offer an example of "applying Peirce" to the logical use of color in
https://www.academia.edu/16332326/A_Comprehensive_Treatment_of_Color_Submitted_to_the_Semiotic_Nonagon 

and to those that are interested I can send you an other paper “Analyses 
of the Bauhaus’s Preliminary Course under its Three Masters” (originally 
published in a CD-ROM ofthe Proceedings of VIII IASS-AIS Congress 
at//Lyon, France, 2004). Since it will be published in a book at 
SUNY-Buffalo we will not upload it at Academia...


Regards
Claudio

--
Prof. Dr. Arch. Claudio F. Guerri
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Home address: Gral. Lemos 270  (1427) Buenos Aires – Argentina
Telefax: (0054-11) 4553-4895 or 4553-7976
Cell phone: (0054-9-11) 6289-8123
E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com


El 11/02/2016 a las 11:46, Jon Awbrey escribió:

Adrian, List,

I would start with the three normative sciences of aesthetics, ethics, 
and logic.
When semiotics becomes normative it falls within logic, so I would 
worry whether
pure aesthetics has much to do with objective or even interpretive 
meaning, that is
to say, semantics or pragmatics.  Just a worry, I will have to think 
on it a while.


From where I see it, concerned primarily with applications to 
scientific inquiry and
empirical data, the discussion of Peirce's categories over the last 20 
years or so has
undergone such debasement that it now borders on a style of 
philosophical astrology.


Regards,

Jon

On 2/9/2016 11:33 AM, Adrian Ivakhiv wrote:

Dear all:

I'm struggling with a way of tying Peirce's categories down to the 3 
main elements by which we can make sense of art
works: their materiality, our experience of them, and their meanings. 
Putting it that way suggests one ordering, but a
deeper thinking through of the process (and nonlinear) nature of the 
categories suggests another. I'm interested in
gauging what Peircians may think. I'd appreciate any comments 
directly on the web site below:


http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2016/02/09/rethinking-the-3-categories/

Thanks!

Rethinking the 3 categories

February 9, 2016 byAdrian J Ivakhiv 



I've been struggling with how my triadic framework for interpreting 
art works relates to C. S. Peirce's categories

.

When I first developed my triadism (fleshed out
in/Ecologies 
of the Moving
Image /) into the 
non-Peircian terms of materiality, experience, and
representation 
 
--- which I did in the context
of teaching a course on the environmental arts --- I loosely 
considered the first of these to be analogous to Peircian

firstness, the second to secondness, and the third to thirdness.

The point, in my teaching, was not to adhere strictly to Peirce, 
since my students weren't studying him, but just to
have a handy triadic formula that would be useful for making sense of 
the eco-arts in ways that get beyond the customary
overemphasis on/representation/in favor of/experience/(including 
affect) and/materiality/. Materiality deals with the
stuff that's just there (one element); experience involves a second 
--- the artist, the reader or viewer, et al. (two);
and representation makes sense and meaning of the stuff and its 
shapers and 

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

[Claudio Guerri]

Stephen, Clark, Edwina, List...
I think that I wrote already about this subject... but there are two 
authors that I like very much that constructed some good 'metaphors' for 
the understanding of the /triadic relation/.
Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser studied Peirce  in a Seminar by 
Farnçois Recanati in Paris, France, during the 50's...??? if somebody 
knows a good reference, I would be glad to know more about...


Lacan was interested in the unconscious from a psychoanalytic point of 
view, and he learned that besides his "the imaginary" (1ness) and "the 
symbolic" (3ness, both derived from Ferdinand de Sussure's linguistic 
sign) he had to add "the real" (2ness) that he defined as "the 
impossible", « la grimace du réel »... or better (or in a more perverse 
way): "what never ceases to not join the symbolic" (the translation from 
the Spanish version is mine...) apparently, the French (original 
version) is. « ce qui/ne cesse/de/ne pas/s'écrire »...
I think that it is a good conceptual approach to the Dynamic Object by 
Peirce. For that and else... he was expelled from the IPA 
(/International Psychoanalytic Association).../


Althusser (even if considered a Stalinist by a dear fellow of the 
Peirce-L) wrote about the "Social Practice"... and (following Peirce) he 
proposed: a /Theoretical Practice/ (1ness), an /Economical Practice/ 
(2ness) and a /Political Practice/ (3ness).
He did not give a synthetic or unique word to 'baptize' the /Theoretical 
Practice/ which I consider 'possibilitant' (following Peirce of course), 
but he stated that the /Political Practice /is always 'decisive' and 
that the Economical Practice is 'determinant only in last instance' (I 
say, because it is the 'real impossible'... and if you don't believe it, 
follow what will happen with Argentina after the 10th of December...). 
Pitifully, because of his statements, he was expelled form the PCF 
(Parti Communiste Français)...
But Althusser also added a good explanation (for the Peircean definition 
of sign): normally, one aspect of the sign will be 'dominant'.

Did Peirce say something like that? somewhere?

Taking account of what happened to those two scholars... perhaps the 
'triadic relation' can be a very dangerous subject...!!!???

All the best
Claudio

Stephen C. Rose escribió el 30/11/2015 a las 03:26 p.m.:
Triadic Philosophy as I have evolved it over its lifetime tends to 
agree in with what you have said Clark about the triad. With the 
following exception which I take to be at least somewhat related to 
Peirce and perhaps to agree with something I have seen in Edwina's 
posts.  The triadic progression is the progression of a sign which 
originates in the spontanaity of firstness and proceeds through the 
obstacles set up in secondness and arrives at the expressions and 
actions made possible by the encounter of 1 and 2.


I understand that the premise of Triadic Philosophy, that Reality is 
all, is hardly consistent with Peirce.



Bookshttp://buff.ly/15GfdqUArt:http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts:http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Clark Goble > wrote:




On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Sungchul Ji > wrote:


*f**g*
*Real Rose* >*Rose* --->*Mental Rose*
(Firstness)  (Secondness)  (Thirdness)
   [World of Structures] [Physical World]
 [Mental World]

   |  ^
 ||
 ||
*h*


Peirce’s ontology doesn’t quite follow that. Firstness is the
world of raw experience, ideas or possibility, secondness the
world of reactions, brute force & actuality and thirdness the
world of signs, connections and power (not necessarily mental
unless one is careful what one means by that). So depending upon
what one means by structure you’d have that in the third universe.

Again though one has to be careful with terminology and Peirce’s
shifts around a bit over time.


-
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 the line
"UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .












-
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 the 

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

[Claudio Guerri]

Thanks for the quotes Jeff
All the best
Claudio

Jeffrey Brian Downard escribió el 30/11/2015 a las 06:33 p.m.:

Hello Claudio, Clark, List,

The idea that one sign may be dominant is nicely highlighted in Peirce's 
discussion of focusing attention on one thing and letting others fade into the 
background.  This ability to focus one's attention is, on Peirce's account, 
central to the explanation of how we can exert some degree of self control as 
we interpret signs as thoughts.  The index serves the function of directing the 
attention on one or another object (CP 1.369, 2.256, 2.259, 2.350, 2.428,, 
3.434, 4.562, etc.).

--Jeff



Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354

From: Claudio Guerri [claudiogue...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 2:18 PM
To: Stephen C. Rose; Clark Goble
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Stephen, Clark, Edwina, List...
I think that I wrote already about this subject... but there are two authors 
that I like very much that constructed some good 'metaphors' for the 
understanding of the triadic relation.
Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser studied Peirce  in a Seminar by Farnçois 
Recanati in Paris, France, during the 50's...??? if somebody knows a good 
reference, I would be glad to know more about...

Lacan was interested in the unconscious from a psychoanalytic point of view, and he learned that besides his "the 
imaginary" (1ness) and "the symbolic" (3ness, both derived from Ferdinand de Sussure's linguistic sign) he had to 
add "the real" (2ness) that he defined as "the impossible", « la grimace du réel »... or better (or in a more 
perverse way): "what never ceases to not join the symbolic" (the translation from the Spanish version is mine...) 
apparently, the French (original version) is. « ce qui ne cesse de ne pas s'écrire »...
I think that it is a good conceptual approach to the Dynamic Object by Peirce. 
For that and else... he was expelled from the IPA (International Psychoanalytic 
Association)...

Althusser (even if considered a Stalinist by a dear fellow of the Peirce-L) wrote about 
the "Social Practice"... and (following Peirce) he proposed: a Theoretical 
Practice (1ness), an Economical Practice (2ness) and a Political Practice (3ness).
He did not give a synthetic or unique word to 'baptize' the Theoretical 
Practice which I consider 'possibilitant' (following Peirce of course), but he 
stated that the Political Practice is always 'decisive' and that the Economical 
Practice is 'determinant only in last instance' (I say, because it is the 'real 
impossible'... and if you don't believe it, follow what will happen with 
Argentina after the 10th of December...). Pitifully, because of his statements, 
he was expelled form the PCF (Parti Communiste Français)...
But Althusser also added a good explanation (for the Peircean definition of 
sign): normally, one aspect of the sign will be 'dominant'.
Did Peirce say something like that? somewhere?

Taking account of what happened to those two scholars... perhaps the 'triadic 
relation' can be a very dangerous subject...!!!???
All the best
Claudio

Stephen C. Rose escribió el 30/11/2015 a las 03:26 p.m.:
Triadic Philosophy as I have evolved it over its lifetime tends to agree in 
with what you have said Clark about the triad. With the following exception 
which I take to be at least somewhat related to Peirce and perhaps to agree 
with something I have seen in Edwina's posts.  The triadic progression is the 
progression of a sign which originates in the spontanaity of firstness and 
proceeds through the obstacles set up in secondness and arrives at the 
expressions and actions made possible by the encounter of 1 and 2.

I understand that the premise of Triadic Philosophy, that Reality is all, is 
hardly consistent with Peirce.


Books <http://buff.ly/15GfdqU> http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: 
<http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl> http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: <http://buff.ly/1wXADj3> http://buff.ly/1wXADj3

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Clark Goble 
<cl...@lextek.com<mailto:cl...@lextek.com>> wrote:

On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Sungchul Ji 
<<mailto:s...@rci.rutgers.edu>s...@rci.rutgers.edu<mailto:s...@rci.rutgers.edu>>
 wrote:


   f  g
   Real Rose  > Rose  ---> Mental Rose
   (Firstness)  (Secondness)  
(Thirdness)
  [World of Structures] [Physical World]  [Mental World]
  | 
   ^
  | 
   |
  ||

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct

[Claudio Guerri]

Charles, List,
bref...
I would say that instinct is not related to knowledge, but abduction and 
habit are.

There is no 'good' adbduction without knowledge...
there is no 'interesting' habit without it neither...
best
Claudio

charlesp...@comcast.net escribió el 15/07/2015 a las 12:42 p.m.:
It is not obvious to me, perhaps exposing holes in my knowledge of 
Peirce, if or how instinct is different from abduction.



*From: *Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com
*To: *peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
*Sent: *Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:50:28 AM
*Subject: *Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct

John C., list,

Here's another Peirce quote on instinct, FWIW:

[§6. The Fallibility of Reasoning and the Feeling of Rationality
(Minute Logic, ergo 1902 or 1903)
CP 2.170.]
If I may be allowed to use the word habit, without any
implication as to the time or manner in which it took birth, so as
to be equivalent to the corrected phrase habit or disposition,
that is, as some general principle working in a man's nature to
determine how he will act, then an instinct, in the proper sense
of the word, is  an inherited habit  , or in more accurate
language, an inherited disposition. But since it is difficult to
make sure whether a habit is inherited or is due to infantile
training and tradition, I shall ask leave to employ the word
instinct to cover both cases. []
[End quote]

https://books.google.com/books?id=De7DAgAAQBAJpg=PA123lpg=PA123dq=%22Now+we+certainly+have+habits+of+reasoning;+and+our+natural+judgments+as+to+what+is+good%22source=blots=e0HIZ4043csig=H37JxmUljKdiVD46nohWjnCEm28

I've often thought that there's not much difference between talk of 
'developing an instinct' and 'developing an intuition'. I remember a 
college math text book for a course written by its professor, and the 
theme was the use of both reasoning and 'intuition' - in the sense of 
instinct (not like Kantian intuition). I've wondered why Peirce 
doesn't look more at the idea of individual development of abductive 
instinct. At one point he seems to identify instinct with 
half-conscious inference, but it may be that he was listing two 
different things:


[[Logic and Spiritualism], March-April 1890, W 6:387
Conclusions men reach they know not how, are better than those
fortified by unscientific logic. By logic, _/Aquinas/_, if not
_/Calvin/_, persuaded himself that one of the chief joys of the
blest will be to peer over heaven's parapet and watch the damned
writhing in torments and rage below: by instinct, or
half-conscious inference, a poor peasant girl will inwardly reject
the doctrine, for all revered pastor may say. []
[End quote, font-enlargement added]

Best, Ben

On 7/14/2015 8:36 PM, John Collier wrote:

Thanks to everyone who responded, but especially to Miguel for
sending this gem. Now I just have to figure out what lies behind it.

I agree with Jeff that the Century Dictionary entries are not
particularly useful.

I should be asleep. Best to all,

John

From: mig...@cegri.es [mailto:mig...@cegri.es]
Sent: July 15, 2015 1:18 AM
To: John Collier; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic



[Text File:message-footer.txt]




--
Local

Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270
1427 BUENOS AIRES
Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895
Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123
E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com mailto:claudiogue...@fibertel.com.ar


-
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 the 
line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] La contribución de Peirce para la teoría de la comunicación

[Claudio Guerri]

Vinicius, Spanish-speaking friends of the List,
thanks for your article Vinicius, and in return here is also one in 
Spanish at Academia:


https://www.academia.edu/10284308/La_Manumisi%C3%B3n_de_las_im%C3%A1genes

It is an article written for Lexia 17-18 on how to do things with images...
La manumisión de las imágenes
by Martín M. Acebal, Miguel Bohórquez Nates, Claudio Guerri, Cristina Voto

All the best
Claudio

--
Prof. Dr. Arch. Claudio F. Guerri
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com



Vinicius Romanini escribió el 15/07/2015 a las 02:42 p.m.:

Dear Spanish-speaking friends

I recently wrote a chapter to a book organized by Gustavo Garduño 
Oropeza and Lenin Martell Gámez (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de 
México). The title of the book is Dies autores clave para comprender 
la comunicación como metadisciplina: Here is the link to the webpage 
of the publishing house:

http://www.edicioneseon.com.mx/uaemex/ua06.php

The subject of my chapter is Peirce's contribution for a theory of 
communication.

If  anyone is interested, I have a pdf copy of my chapter at Academia.edu:

https://www.academia.edu/14042635/La_contribuci%C3%B3n_de_Peirce_para_la_teor%C3%ADa_de_la_comunicaci%C3%B3n

Best,

--
Vinicius Romanini, Ph.D.
Professor of Communication Studies
School of Communications and Arts
University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
www.minutesemeiotic.org http://www.minutesemeiotic.org/
www.semeiosis.com.br http://www.semeiosis.com.br/

Skype:vinicius_romanini





-
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 the 
line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct

[Claudio Guerri]

Gary, List,
you are right Gary, but there is still a strange behavior in most of us 
Peirce-listers... we read and study Peirce, but then we write and 
understand was is written in a strict 'positivist' way. Since everything 
is a sign and every sign has to be considered triadic... then of course 
in human instinct there has to be more than ONLY knowledge... because 
knowledge can not 'exist alone'...
I think, without having never studied this subject thoroughly, that 
instinct is some how related to secondness, to a more (so to say) 
'biological' aspect, and though to the impossible, to the real in 
Lacan, and so on...
And by the way, I am also aware that we are not completely aware, or 
conscious, of all what we 'really' know...
and more, besides what we know and what we don't know that we know, 
there is the unconscious (that also exists), and works, not always, in 
favor of what we are able to think rationally.

All the best
Claudio


Gary Richmond escribió el 15/07/2015 a las 02:34 p.m.:

Claudio, list,

Claudio wrote: I would say that instinct is not related to knowledge, 
but abduction and habit are.

There is no 'good' abduction without knowledge...
​​

I'm not certain that I agree with the first part of this statement, 
viz., that instinct is not related to knowledge, but that is a 
complex issue which would take some considerable work to address 
adequately (Manuel's snippet and my previous long Peircean quote, as 
well as the passage below may suggest a path which such an inquiry 
might take).


But I fully agree with the second part of your comment, viz. that 
there is no 'good' abduction without knowledge, what Peirce calls 
the well-prepared mind making good guesses leading to, in the 
following example, correct hypotheses in science (something not 
dissimilar must surely be the case in art, architecture, etc., I'm 
sure you'd agree).


. . . Yes; it must be confessed that if we knew that the impulse
to prefer one hypothesis to another really were analogous to the
instincts of birds and wasps, it would be foolish not to give it
play, within the bounds of reason; especially since we must
entertain some hypothesis, or else forego all further knowledge
than that which we have already gained by that very means. But is
it a fact that man possesses this magical faculty? Not, I reply,
to the extent of guessing right the first time, nor perhaps the
second; but /that the well-prepared mind has wonderfully soon
guessed each secret of nature is historical truth. All the
theories of science have been so obtained /[emphasis added].

But may they not have come fortuitously, or by some such
modification of chance as the Darwinian supposes? I answer that
three or four independent methods of computation show that it
would be ridiculous to suppose our science to have so come to
pass. [. . .] There is a reason, an interpretation, a logic, in
the course of scientific advance, and this indisputably proves to
him who has perceptions of rational or significant relations, that
man's mind must have been attuned to the truth of things in order
to discover what he has discovered. It is the very bedrock of
logical truth. CP 6.476


Best,

Gary

Gary Richmond*
*
*
*
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Claudio Guerri 
claudiogue...@gmail.com mailto:claudiogue...@gmail.com wrote:




-
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 mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu mailto:l...@list.iupui.edu with the line
UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .









--
Local

Prof. Dr. Arq. Claudio F. Guerri
Facultad de Arquitectura, Diseño y Urbanismo
Universidad de Buenos Aires
Domicilio particular: Gral. Lemos 270
1427 BUENOS AIRES
Telefax: (011) 4553-7976/4895
Celular: (011) 15-6289-8123
E-mail: claudiogue...@gmail.com mailto:claudiogue...@fibertel.com.ar


-
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 the 
line UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .