Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified?

2018-09-15 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
John S., List: JFS: I would also add that phenomenology is not a normative science. But Peirce used logic to analyze and specify the phenomenological categories. That application of logic is prior to normative science, and it establishes the theory of semiotic. I agree that phenomology is not

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified?

2018-09-15 Thread John F Sowa
Jerry R, Helmut, and Jon AS, This note is rather long, but each of your questions requires a lot of explanation supported by quotations. JR But my reservation about not treating bacteria as quasi-mind remains. How is this even possible? I'll answer that question with another question: A

RE: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified?

2018-09-15 Thread Auke van Breemen
John, I see that you still put semiotics beneath phenomenology. My question: if speculative grammar, with alternative name semiotics is not the first of the normative logic branch anymore, what occupies this spot instead? You seem to argue that because semiotic is not normative it cannot be

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified?

2018-09-14 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
John S., List: JAS: Peirce repeatedly made it very clear that he considered Logic as Semeiotic to be a Normative Science, not a branch of phenomenology. JFS: No. He explicitly said that logic is a branch of mathematics. Please provide a citation for this claim. The first branch of

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified?

2018-09-14 Thread Jerry Rhee
Dear John, list, You quotes Margolis: The growth, reproduction, and communication of these moving, alliance- forming bacteria become isomorphic with our thought, with our happiness, our sensitivities and stimulations. I agree with this, too. But my reservation about not treating bacteria

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified?

2018-09-14 Thread John F Sowa
Edwina, Jerry R, Jon AS, and Jerry LRC, Peirce answered your questions. I like his 1903 *outline* because it's a clean and simple summary of everything he wrote about the sciences and their interrelationships. But as an outline, it omits nearly all the details. ET I wonder if this list will

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified?

2018-09-14 Thread Edwina Taborsky
Helmut, list Could you explain to me the functional difference, to a research program, whether you define it as cenoscopic [study of the data already acquired] vs idioscopic [discovers new phenomena]. And what is 'language-based idioscopic' in biology? If you are a

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categories and Modes of Being (was How should semeiotic be classified?

2018-09-14 Thread Helmut Raulien
Jerry LR Chandler, list,   Yes! I both humbly (just pretending?) and provocatingly ask: Is biosemiotics cenoscopic, and language-based logic idioscopic?   Best, Helmut    14. September 2018 um 18:07 Uhr  "Jerry LR Chandler" wrote:   List:   The recent post by Jerry Rhee and Edwina