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: 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