Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Gene, Gary F, and Clark, Gene let's remember the influential book by Ogden and Richards, The Meaning of Meaning (1923), which brought discussion of Peirce to a wider audience over many following decades. It was Lady Welby's influence on Ogden that brought Peirce into the discussion, using

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Adding to John's last statement concerning Peirce's letters to Lady Welby, let's remember the influential book by Ogden and Richards, The Meaning of Meaning (1923), which brought discussion of Peirce to a wider audience over many following decades. It was Lady Welby's influence on Ogden that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

> On Aug 9, 2017, at 7:18 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > But there is another side of the question revealed in Peirce’s 1909 letter to > Welby (SS 118): > “My studies must extend over the whole of general Semeiotic. I think, dear > Lady Welby, that you are in danger of falling into some

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

On 8/9/2017 9:18 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: Peirce certainly devoted a lot of study to the meanings of English words, especially in the period /before/ he developed his detailed classification of signs, but of course his work was not /limited/ to those studies. Yes. I would never "block

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

John, Clark, Kirsti, …, John, I agree with everything you say here. Peirce’s “high regard for his work on lexicography” is well deserved, too. But there is another side of the question revealed in Peirce’s 1909 letter to Welby (SS 118): “My studies must extend over the whole of general

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Kirsti, Gary F., and Clark, Kirsti Meanings are contextual. - Do we agree in that? Yes. Peirce said many times in many ways that any meaningful concept must show its passport at the gates of perception and action. That is a major part of its context. Kirsti Letters to lady Welby need to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

gt; Gary f. > > > > } We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we > pretend to be. [Vonnegut] { > > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway > > > > *From:* Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] > *Sent:* 7-Aug-17 16:54 > *To:* Peirce-

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

> On Aug 7, 2017, at 10:21 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > Clark, > > Kirsti has presented zero evidence that the sign classifications Peirce > detailed in the 1908 Welby letters are summaries of earlier work rather than > current work on his part. In fact, if you actually read the

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Signs gateway From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: 7-Aug-17 11:31 To: Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology On Aug 6, 2017, at 2:06 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi <mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote:

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Helmut, What you project here is pretty much what I’ve done with Turning Signs. One part of the text, the obverse I call it, consists of 19 sequential chapters that were completed two years ago and have not changed (except that some links have been added.) Another part, the reverse, is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

> On Aug 6, 2017, at 2:06 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > As evidence backing up interpretations on CSP's then current main interests, > works at hand, I find Welby correspondence necessarily weak. Not strong, that > is. Again I’ve not kept carefully up on the nuances of what was

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

Thank you, Kirsti! I do not have time to write it as a scientifical correct book with all relevant literature mentioned (having an idea takes seconds, but comparing it with the most relevant existing texts about the subject has a different time scale) , and in the past it was always so, that

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: 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: 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

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

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

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 do with the knowledge and understanding you are after?"   I want to combine CSP with

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

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 classifications aside and proceeded towards other aims." I haven't found such evidence, but if Peirce actually did that, he must have done it in 1909 or later.

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

On 8/4/2017 5:23 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: Something is either a gas, a liquid, or a solid, and you cannot tell which one, by just looking at the chemical composition. That is, because additional information is needed Actually, there are many "strange states" of matter, for which that

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: 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

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

Jerry, List,   Maybe in the analogy with chemistry and physics one might say: Chemical composition is one thing, and classification into solids, liquids and gases another. Something is either a gas, a liquid, or a solid, and you cannot tell which one, by just looking at the chemical

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

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 composition? Like if you add all aspects or

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

Helmut, Kirsti, List: > On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > But composition is just a matter different from classification. Therefore a > sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no matter what a > sini- or a legisign is composed of. > On

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

Kirsti: > On Aug 4, 2017, at 1:34 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > > I have never found sign classifications of much use, even though I spent a > lot of time once, long ago, with reading CSP's own writings on those issues. In my view, the conceptualization of classes / categories lies at

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

Dear list, "In an illuminating image, Aristotle compares the use made by the noetic soul of phantasia to the role of diagrams in geometry: *It is impossible even to think (noein) without a mental picture (phantasmatos). The same affection (pathos) is involved in thinking (noein) as in drawing

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

Helmut, It’s not that complicated. A triad is a set of three — three of anything. A trichotomy is a division of something into three — usually a division of a type into three classes, or subtypes. For example, signs can be subdivided into three classes, in various ways:

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

Helmut, list: You said: “Is "I-think" the same as "consistency"?” To which I would reply: Consider what effects that might *conceivably* have practical bearings you *conceive* the objects of your *conception* to have. Then, your *conception* of those effects is the whole of your

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

    Supplement: I just have tried to read something on the internet about Apel´s Peirce- reception. Wow, this is interesting. Is "I-think" the same as "consistency"? And what about the logic of relatives? Is it not a different topic either, but must be made part of the whole topic too, thus is

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

Kirsti, List, For me both (classification and triads) was and still is complex and hard to understand. Before I have had a more or less proper understanding of the sign triad, I did not understand sign classes, eg. what would be the difference between "qualisign" and "icon". Another puzzling

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: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Helmust, list: Accordingly, just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that motion is in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that thoughts are in us. Best, J On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > List, > Are trichotomies and triads

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

List, Are trichotomies and triads two different topics? I think so: One is classification, the other composition. "Signs" as a term, I think, is more connected with classification, and "meaning" with composition. Is that so? It is my impression. And: Is it so, that Peirce called himself a

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: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

> On Jul 31, 2017, at 6:52 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > But you will recall that his classification of signs and expansion of this > classification recently discussed here was an important part of his letters > to Victoria Welby. And in his late work, even his

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Clark, Stephen R, list, There a great deal I agree with in your post, Clark, but even more that I disagree with. But I'll have to respond more fully at a later date. For now just a few immediate reactions. I will have little to say on Heidegger as I haven't read his work in years, and I recall

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

> On Jul 31, 2017, at 4:41 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > But I consider Kirsti's notion that "CSP was all his life after SIGNS. That > was earlier. Later he was after meanings" itself, if not 'gravely', at least > completely in wrong. Peirce was actively thinking about

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Clark, Kirsti, list, Clark, it sounds like you have* a lot* to deal with at the moment, to say the least! I suppose I do too, although quite very different mattersas upon returning from the funeral of a close relative, my spouse and I have been called out of town again to help another relative

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

That’s interesting. I was familiar with Derrida’s and of course Habermas but I didn’t know there were others. In Germany there were e.g. Herbert Marcuse, Jürgen von Kempski, Max Bense, his wife Elisabeth Walther-Bense, the late Karl-Otto Apel, Klaus Oehler or Helmut Pape. Best, Stefan Am

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Kirsti, list: If the French style of writing relies on argumentation- within the text at hand- and it is assumed that any reader is thoroughly familiar with the sources, then the reader ought to know that “see-my-otics” has a suffix that is of Greek origin. So, what is it we know about

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

> On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:52 PM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > In my view Gary R. is gravely wrong in assuming that CSP was all his life > after SIGNS. That was earlier. Later he was after meanings. > > Heidegger was never attempting to create any theory of SIGNS. He was after > meanings.

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: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

> On Jul 28, 2017, at 2:29 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > By the 20th century Peirce will have somewhat changed his terminology; but > from 1902 on I believe he always refer to three branches of logica docens, or > logic as semeiotic: namely speculative grammar, critic,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

On 7/28/2017 5:07 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: when [Peirce] uses “intentional” in an ordinary context, it means pretty much the same as it typically does in ordinary usage today. For instance, CP 1.334 (c. 1905)... Yes. And note the definition of 'intentional' that he wrote for the _Century

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Clark, you wrote that for Peirce, “Intentionality is from object through signs rather than anything like an ego or directness.” I don’t see that this applies to Peirce’s use of the terms “intention” or “intentional,” and that makes it difficult for me to see what your sentence means. Can you

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Dear Clark, list, I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. You wrote: CG: For Scotus the foundation of signs thus because the *a priori* structures of the soul. I’m here thinking of Scotus’ *Grammatica Speculativa.* Peirce too turns to this same aspect of Scotus’ thought. In the Comments

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

On 7/28/2017 12:39 PM, Clark Goble wrote: I’ve long noted that while Peirce’s phenomenology bears little resemblance to Husserl’s, Heidegger’s seems quite different. Famously it is both on the nature of consciousness and intentionality that Heidegger breaks from Husserl. Heidegger too turned