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
Ben wrote:
A 3-D object can be so rotated in 4-D space as to turn it
opposite-handed. I remember an episode of the original _Outer Limits_
about it -- some man ended up with two right hands :-).
My response:
Thanks, Ben. I'm not surprised to hear from
you on this
theory also places channels between the stages,
especially between encoding decoding.)
Best, Ben
- Original Message -
From: Jim Piat
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 12:37 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign -
help!
Ben wrote:
A 3-D obj
Thanks Bill for your comments.
You wrote:
Patrick,
I'm don't know what in my post you're replying to. I don't keep my
posts, so I can't be sure, but I don't recall mentioning an
expression continuum, segments or meaning continuum. I may
have; I sometimes think I only think I know what I
Patrick,
My responses are interspersed below.
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Coppock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Cc: Bill Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 9:26 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
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
Dear Patrick:A few quick notes from Salzburg as I found your comments of interest and perhaps I can clarify some issues.My goals are more concerned with a coherent philosophy of science, especially a coherent relation between chemical philosophy and biological philosophy and medical philosophy.
Asociación Latinoamericana de Semiótica_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks
Claudio
- Original Message -
From:
Jorge Lurac
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:22
PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign,
Legisign, Qualisign - help! ...real-reality... truth...
peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:13 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Michael said:
[MD:] Haven't had the pleasure of Calvino's Cosmicomics, [but] I like the
antidotal sound of it [cure for hyper-seriousness]. The
asymptotic/singularities
Patrick, List,
Patrick wrote the 28 June:
I like to start out from Peirce's definition of the real as that object
for which truth stands
I could not find this definition in the CP... could you tell from where you
got it?
I found this one, closely related:
CP 1.339 [...] Finally, the
]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 10:25 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Patrick, List,
Patrick wrote the 28 June:
I like to start out from Peirce's definition of the real as that object for
which truth stands
I
Message -
From: Claudio Guerri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Patrick, List,
Patrick wrote the 28 June:
I like to start out from Peirce's definition
: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:40 PM
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
It is found in How to Make Our Ideas Clear:
The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who
investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented
It is found in How to Make Our Ideas Clear:
The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who
investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in
this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality. CP
5.407
Joe Ransdell
Dear Folks,
didn't say that, but he might have.)
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Michael J. DeLaurentis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:42 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
May be way out
.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:49 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
It is found in "How to Make Our Ideas
Clear": The opinion which is fated to be ultimately
agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and
the object represented i
!
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Michael J. DeLaurentis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 4:37 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Haven't had the pleasure of Calvino's Cosmicomics, by I
@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:13 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign - help!
Michael said:
[MD:] Haven't had the pleasure of Calvino's Cosmicomics, [but] I like the
antidotal sound of it [cure for hyper-seriousness]. The
asymptotic/singularities of beginnings
At 0:11 -0400 25-06-2006, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
I will be at the Whitehead Conference in Salzburg next week so I do
not anticipate much time for replies.
Talking of Whitehead, whose process philosophy, or philosophy of
organism is surely an interesting and challenging read for any
Peirce
Patrick Coppock wrote:
At 0:11 -0400 25-06-2006, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
I will be at the Whitehead Conference in Salzburg next week so I do
not anticipate much time for replies.
...
However, for us to believe that Firsts, Seconds and Thirds actually
exist, beyond their being mere
Jean-Marc, Patrick
Patrick has a point in that Peirce's categories are such that in representation the higher-order presupposes the lower (is that the way to use `presuppose, by the way?). Jean-Marc equally has a point in noting that Peirce became a `Three-Category Realist' in his later thinking.
Arnold Shepperson wrote:
Jean-Marc, Patrick
Patrick has a point in that Peirce's categories are such that in
representation the higher-order presupposes the lower (is that the way
to use `presuppose, by the way?). Jean-Marc equally has a point in
noting that Peirce became a `Three-Category
Thanks JM for your brief comments,
I still think we need some way of distinguishing between that which
is for us phenomenologically or experientally real and that which is
(enduringly) existent in the world.
Peirce and Whitehead both operate with notions that postulate some
kind of
Thanks for your comments Arnold, and yes indeed, what Peirce and
Whitehead probably have most in common is their respective
competencies in mathematics, and the way in which they use these
competncies to consolidate and explicate their respective
philosophical projects.
It's their maths that
Dear Patrick, Folks--
Whitehead, yes-- and also Wittgenstein's
notion of family resemblance. Signs, like thought are more or less
continuous and resist our attempts to pigeon hole them.OTOH contrasting
mere intellectual associations with triadic thought Peirce says, "But the
highest kind
Patrick wrote:
However, for us to believe that Firsts, Seconds and Thirds actually
exist, beyond their being mere transitory events in an ongoing semiosic
process, would be fallibilistic in Peirce's terms, or a Fallacy of
Misplaced Concreteness in Whitehead's terms.
Jean-Marc responded:
At 9:19 -0400 28-06-2006, Jim Piat wrote:
In any case, what I'm doing here is asking a question and would love
for someone to attempt to sort through how the terms real, existent
and true are related.
That's the big one Jim!
I like to start out from Peirce's definition of the real as that
Patrick, Jean-Marc.
On Jun 28, 2006, at 7:27 AM, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Patrick Coppock wrote:
At 0:11 -0400 25-06-2006, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
I will be at the Whitehead Conference in Salzburg next week so I
do not anticipate much time for replies.
...
However, for us to believe
Jerry,
Here's the 'classic' presentation of qualisign, sinsign, legisign (why
they are given in the order of the subject of the thread I don't know,
but the categorial order I just gave them in is as to their firstness,
secondness, and thirdness). In any event, this is the order in which
Jerry, Gary, list,
A number of recent posts have addressed the topics of:
On Jun 19, 2006, at 1:05 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest wrote:
Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
I am seeking help in understanding the importance of these terms to
individual scholars.
The definitions are
Ben,
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: vrijdag 16 juni 2006 16:25
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
MessageAuke, list,
[Auke] Ben I have the feeling that much of your uneasyness is a
consequence
List, Bernard, Robert, Joe, Ben, Gary, Claudio, Arnaud,
For a long time I do not post on this list. I wish I had more time, so
interesting and dear to me is this topic. It's nice to see how this topic
is a recurrent theme in the important discussions that take place here,
and how new
Title: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
List,
I did not know the Digital
Peirce online site before. But am now reading some article there which I regard
very good. And it is just the first article I am reading. Would advice people
here who did not see the site before
Wilfred wrote,
"List,
"I did not know the Digital Peirce online site before. "
I should just send this to every new peirce-lister. Additions
corrections welcome. I've checked these links, they're all live, though some of
the URLs seem to be the result of recent changes. - Ben Udell
-
ts interpretant's
mind? I think that the appearance of the word does evoke a horse in my mind at
least, because of the habitual connection of that appearance with an idea of a
horse. Furthermore the interplay of singular utterances, qualitative
appearances, and habits,do affect the symbol in its habitu
Joe and list,
I agree with the idea of being very cautious with the 10 trichotomies
classification. You are right I think in recalling that it was work in
progress for Peirce.
I would be very interested too in reading the material you are refering
to below if you can make it available to the
Bernard says::,
Joe and list,
I agree with the idea of being very cautious with the 10 trichotomies
classification. You are right I think in recalling that it was work in
progress for Peirce.
I would be very interested too in reading the material you are refering
to below if you can make it
Thanks very much for the quote Joe. The last sentence puzzles me. Will
have to think about it: seems like Peirce considered lately that he had
earlier put erroneously some considerations related to the (dynamic)
interpretant into his characterizations of the relation of the object
to the
) can also not be a
legisign. But I might be wrong. Of course.
Wilfred
Van:
Benjamin Udell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: dinsdag 13 juni 2006
9:51
Aan: Peirce
Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l]
Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
. If the same rules hold for these 10
in mind and I
don't recall if that was sufficiently stressed at that time.
Joe
.
- Original Message -
From: Gary Richmond [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:35 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Claudio, Ben, Robert, Bernard, Joe, list,
First, sorry for sending out that last incomplete message by mistake.
Claudio, so good to see you on the list again. I too am pleased to see
all the
diagrammatic discussion and especially some of Ben's abductions
relating diagrams (for example the
might state the point).
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Frances Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:59 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Frances to listers...
The broad theme
Ben, list,
By now you've received my completed and corrected message which omits
the request for the not-simplified lattice version of my trikonic
diagram of the 10 classes (since I very much like your simplified form
which I included in the revised message) and adds analytical content.
For
Frances to listers...
As posited by Peirce under speculative grammatics, it is clear enough
to me that the classes of immediate object signs are qualisigns and
sinsigns and legisigns, and that the classes of dynamic object signs
are icons and indexes and symbols, and that the various interpretant
future.
Best, Ben Udell
- Original Message -
From: Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 5:55 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Sinsign, Legisign, Qualisign
Dear list,
I would like to state First of all that I regard the ongoing discussion about
sinsign
Benjamin Udell wrote :
I had already produced the second table (Fig. 3) when you sent
the graphic of Peirce's own table. It's really just Joe's table,
re-produced asan HTML table, and with the second column put into
"standard" order (a, ab, abc instead of a, ba, cba)
Ben wrote:
qualisign = tone = potisign
sinsign = token = actisign
legisign = type = famisign
While these are often called alternate names of the same things,
Gary has said that they aren't just sets of synonyms but instead
reflect some differences of conception. I.e., for some
From the own hand of the inventor ( MS 339, August 7th 1904) :
B Morand
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
Thank you,
Bernard!-Ben
Qualisign
Sinsign
Legisign
Icon
Index
Symbol
Rheme
Dicisign
Argument
qualisigns
iconic
rhematic
/ sinsigns
\
iconic
rhematic
Frances to Wilfred Berendsen...
These signs are of recurring interest to me also, and several past
messages dealing with them by experts are in the list archive. Any
replies to you will hence be followed with enthusiasm. My present
access to the writings of Peirce is limited, but other writers
50 matches
Mail list logo
