[peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Hello, Sorry but where on the net can those abstracts and papers from the Salzburg conferences be found? Kind regards, Wilfred Berendsen Van: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: zaterdag 15 juli 2006 19:35 Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help! Dear Jim, Rob and List: Before turning to Jim's post, a couple of comments about the Salzburg conferences. The Whitehead conference attracted about three hundred (300!!) participants. The Chinese are keenly interested in Whitehead. It was rumored that they intend to establish 25 research institutes to explore philosophical and political relations. The sessions on mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology attracted about 25 participants to each! very impressive relative to other philosophical conferences. Peirce was frequently mentioned in sessions. A special session included discussions about the Whitehead - deChardin linkages. Roland Faber's paper suggested to me an orthogonality between these two views of philosophy. By orthogonality in this context I mean the approach to extensions. The abstracts are on the web and papers will also be posted on the website for the conference. The Biosemiotics gathering was attended by about 50 participants from perhaps a dozen different countries. Peirce played a role in many many papers. The abstracts are on the web and the papers will be posted. Lots of discussions of coding and bio-logic. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/387 - Release Date: 12-7-2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/387 - Release Date: 12-7-2006
[peirce-l] Fw: Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Dear Jerry, I agree my attempt to explained handedness was faulty. Here is the Peirce reference to the issue. Glad the conference was such a success. Best wishes, Jim Piat "Take any fact in physics of the triadic kind, by which I mean a fact which can only be defined by simultaneous reference to three things, and you will find there is ample evidence that it never was produced by the action of forces on mere dyadic conditions. Thus, your right hand is that hand which is toward the east when you face the north with your head toward the zenith. Three things, east, west and up, are required to define the difference between right and left. Consequently chemists find that those substances wich rotate the plane of polarization to the right or left can only be produced from such [similar] active substances" Quoted from The Principles of Phenomenology -- page 92 of Buchler's _The Philosophical Writings of Peirce_. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Dear Jerry, I agree my attempt to explained handedness was faulty. Here is the Peirce reference to the issue. Glad the conference was such a success. Best wishes, Jim Piat "Take any fact in physics of the triadic kind, by which I mean a fact which can only be defined by simultaneous reference to three things, and you will find there is ample evidence that it never was produced by the action of forces on mere dyadic conditions. Thus, your right hand is that hand which is toward the east when you face the north with your head toward the zenith. Three things, east, west and up, are required to define the difference between right and left. Consequently chemists find that those substances wich rotate the plane of polarization to the right or left can only be produced from such [similar] active substances" Quoted from The Principles of Phenomenology -- page 92 of Buchler's _The Philosophical Writings of Peirce_. --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: The Guerri graph about some sign relations.
to riddle of quality verses quantity as well oridinal vs cardinal numbers.I guess my point is that for me this discussion of what mode of being are signs has been very helpful to me. Not for any definitive conclusion that have been reached but for the issues that have been raised. For example, I'm just now wondering if there is some value in considering the parallels between Firtness and quality, Secondness and quantity, and Thirdness and sequence --- self, an other, another.Otherness in itself may be adequate to account for quantity in as much as the notion of "and" seem implicit in the notion of "otherness" as for example a self "and" and an other self constitutes otherness. So that quantitity is implicit in other-others. Likewise time as Peirce oft cited examplar of Thirdness par excellence carries within it the notion of sequence or order among others.Just wondering.Cheers,Jim Piat---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED]__ Información de NOD32, revisión 1.1662 (20060715) __Este mensaje ha sido analizado con NOD32 antivirus systemhttp://www.nod32.com --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Dear Jim, Rob and List:Before turning to Jim's post, a couple of comments about the Salzburg conferences.The Whitehead conference attracted about three hundred (300!!) participants. The Chinese are keenly interested in Whitehead. It was rumored that they intend to establish 25 research institutes to explore philosophical and political relations. The sessions on mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology attracted about 25 participants to each! very impressive relative to other philosophical conferences.Peirce was frequently mentioned in sessions. A special session included discussions about the Whitehead - deChardin linkages. Roland Faber's paper suggested to me an orthogonality between these two views of philosophy. By orthogonality in this context I mean the approach to extensions.The abstracts are on the web and papers will also be posted on the website for the conference.The Biosemiotics gathering was attended by about 50 participants from perhaps a dozen different countries. Peirce played a role in many many papers. The abstracts are on the web and the papers will be posted. Lots of discussions of coding and bio-logic.Is it not absolutely wonderful that we can access current research reports from our desktops in a timely and efficient manner? Now, on to the issue of Peirce and chemical isomers that are distinguished by a specific property of rotating light that has passed through a crystal, generating what is called "polarized light." Jim wrote:From: "Jim Piat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 18:17:21 -0400 X-Message-Number: 7 Jerry Chandler wrote: "But, my point is that if four different groups are necessary to = construct an optical isomer of carbon such that it distinguishes between = the logic of polarized light, then it is mathematically impossible to = achieve this logical distinction with any notion of 'threeness". = Optical isomers are not a question of trichotomies and triadicies. They = are questions of tetrachotomies and tetraadicies. I would welcome = arguments to the otherwise". Dear Jerry, =20 Actually, handedness and materials that polarize light are among the = very examples Peirce gives of his notion of Thirdness. Do you have a direct source of this passage? The notions of = left verses right (which distinguished between mirror image optical = stereo-isomers) Peirce pointa out require the consideration of the = triadic relation of three directions (up-down, front back, left right). = It may well be that different carbon groups are involved naturally = occuring steroisomers but in fact only three conjoined points are = required to achieved the distniction beween left and right.This is an interesting point. Of course, it refers to the cartesian plane, not space itself.In general, chemistry operates in space and optical isomers rotate light is space. Triadic examples of handedness Left Right A---B B--A l l l l C C Verses "redundant" tetradic examples of handedness Left Right A--B--D DB-A l l I I C C I don't mean to be present the above as authoritative -- this is merely = my understanding of the issue.=20Modern theory (simplified) considers light rotation to be a spatial operation emerging from the difference between four DIFFERENT material attachments to a central carbon atom.In order to deduce the relation with "left" or "right", one starts with the concept of a tetrahedron.Hold the tetrahedron in space and imagine looking down one of the apexes through the middle point (the central carbon atom) and out the plane opposite the apex and middle point.The "back plane" will contain the other three points of the tetrahedron. These three points can be in two possible orders: A - B - C or A - C - B.Pastuer noticed that two crystal forms of tartaric acid existed and was able to separate them "by eye".One rotated light left, the other right. Many years later it was found that two crystalline forms of tartaric acid with identical molecular formula and structure, represented the order A_B_C or the order A_C_B, differed by the organization in space. This is a slightly simplified version of the narrative but captures the essential features.From a philosophy of science perspective, the existence of optical isomers clears shows the irreducibility of chemistry knowledge to independent physical concepts. As nearly all biochemical molecules are optical isomers, often having hundreds or thousands of optical centers, it is widely believed that a theory of biology depends on explaining the origins of optical isomerism in living systems.I certainly would appreciate any insights individuals may have on how this related t
[peirce-l] Re: The Guerri graph about some sign relations.
Jim, list, You got me thinking this time! >Your comment below raises another related thought: >>I agree about nummbers as othernesses. "Other" is not unlike an ordinal form >>of the phrase "more".>> >What I meant to suggest in my earlier remarks was that "other" was akin to the >notion of quantity as expressed in cardinal numbers and that the notion of >sequence or order as expressed in ordinal numbers was perhaps more akin to the >notion of thirdness, mediation, continuity and time. Otherness I associate >with secondness which I was trying to suggest might be associated with the >notion of quantity. These notions are far from clear in my mind but I think >their interdependence (if in fact they are interdependent) may in part be >explicated by Peirce's categories (as also be the source of some the >disagreement as to whether or when a sign is a first or a third). Semiotic elements -- interpretant, semiotic object , & sign -- are thirds. Each involves reference to an interpretant. That makes each a third. But, relative to each other, they are third, second, & first, respectively. There is a thorny problem there, but it is not a problem of whether Peirce thought that they were third, second, & first, respectively. The only people who disagree are people who don't even make clear whether they think (A) that Peirce _did not hold_ that they are third, second, & first relatively to one another, or (B) that Peirce _wrongly held_ that they are third, second, & first relatively to one another. They should clarify their view (e.g., by saying "Peirce thought so and was wrong!"; or "Peirce didn't think so, Peirce never thought so!"; or "Wow, I just can't figure out what Peirce thought, he's so gnarly!"; etc.) and defend it. Furthermore they might consider arguing in terms of the thorniest problem involved. The thorniest problem is the contrariness of semiotic determination with regard to the definitions of the categories. In "Trichotomic": "First is the beginning, that which is fresh, original, spontaneous, free. Second is that which is determined, terminated, ended, correlative, object, necessitated, reacting. Third is the medium, becoming, developing, bringing about." If the sign is a first relatively to its object and to its interpretant, then why is the sign semiotically determined by the semiotic object, instead of vice versa? Or why isn't the semiotic object the first? And the sign the second? One might say something like: A semiotic object, _as_ an object, has a phenomenological secondness, while the sign, which is in one sense or another, the available 'appearance,' has a kind of phenomenological firstness. But in terms of semiotic (a.k.a. logical) determination, the semiotic object is first and the sign is second. The phenomenological first is semiotically second, and the phenomenological second is semiotically first. I don't say that, but one has to say _something_, no? One of Gary Richmond's motivations for his vectors is in order to deal with that problem. So he says that the vector of semiotic determination is 2, 1, 3. And he's found bases for various vectors in Peirce's work. Involution, evolution, etc. Gary went where the fire is burning. There are some Peircean philosophers whom I much admire, but Gary is the only one of whom I'm aware who has tried to do something about the basic theoretical architecture. Not only that, he's keeping it as Peircean as possible. Some people may dismiss Gary's vectors, and as we know I take a whole other view of the matter, but for those who hold with Peirce's threes, the question is: If not Gary's vectors, then what? Are folks just going to let the semiotic triad lie there in disarray with the categories? Just "get used to it"? That problem won't just go away and probably is one of the things holding pragmaticism back. We can blame to our hearts' content the bottleneck-fondness of philosophers of the phenomenological epoche and the analytic linguistic turn, and there is indeed something wrong when philosophy's two biggest schools treat one bottleneck or the other as the port of entry to a bottle called "philosophy," but I refuse to believe that philosophers are mostly lost seminarians. The pragmaticist conceptions of the semiotic triad and the categories are out of correlation. System-builders are out of fashion in philosophy, yet an encompassing and _consistent_ structure has broad appeal for good reason. Peirce would want his bones to live, not just be antiques polished & preserved. Well, that's just my opinion, and Gary is in Denmark and too busy to caution me on my venting, and of course I want people to have an uncomfortable awareness of problems in Peirce because I've that whole other view of the matter. Taking up your remarks on quantity, >What I meant to suggest in my earlier remarks was that "other" was akin to the >notion of quantity as expressed in cardinal numbers and that the
