Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

Stefan B, Stephen CR, Bev, and Kirsti, I drew a new diagram based on Peirce's classification of the sciences. I'll send it to the list in a separate thread. Stephan I believe you are seeing this from a very different viewpoint. I am interested in the sociology and history of knowledge. So

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

John, Your posts greatly appreciated. But Peirce did write on cyclical arithmetics. With detailed instructions on how demonstrate the rules by experimenting with a pack of cards. Detailed instructions include strict rules on how to achieve a random order with the pack of cards at hand.

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

John, thank for your response. I believe you are seeing this from a very different viewpoint. I am interested in the sociology and history of knowledge. That's why i am thinking in a different diagram. On 8/16/2017 6:29 PM, sb wrote: in my opinion the diagram should contain two cycles. A

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

John, in my opinion the diagram should contain two cycles. A "habit" cycle and a "something unexpected happens" cyle. The diagram should also address the fact, that the stock of knowledge changes with every turn on the "something unexpected happens" cycle. Maybe it would be even better to

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

List, John: > On Aug 16, 2017, at 10:15 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > In his late writings on the logic of pragmatism, he emphasized the > multiple cycles of observations, induction, abduction, deduction, > testing (actions) and repeat. Do you have specific citations? (BTW,

Re: Aw: Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

On 8/12/2017 4:23 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: I have problems with the term "final" or "end" anyway. I guess that the pragmatic maxim is only a proposal how to make our ideas clearer, in order to be able to talk more reasonably, but not absolutely end-clear. That 1878 article about the gates of

Aw: Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

Stephen, John, List, that  a token is often one of "an open-ended variety of types", I find interesting and very agreeable. I have problems with the term "final" or "end" anyway. I guess that the pragmatic maxim is only a proposal how to make our ideas clearer, in order to be able to talk more

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

Thanks. That makes sense. I think to popularize Peirce in the best sense is to create a model that has three stages but which is clearly as you say, not a rote affair. The best popular iteration of a general approach that seems to me triadic is "Madam Secretary" whose theme is not merely thinking

Aw: Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

John, List, the plot type is a sign type, but is it a sign? Or are only the tokens signs, because only they are perceived? Like a book that is read. And is the book only a sign when it is being read, because only then it is interpreted, and when it is closed, it sort of sleeps and is not a sign?

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

On 8/12/2017 10:43 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: Isn't the point of considering anything the end? And isn't the end a practical actionable something (expression, act) that contains the initial sign and the index. Peirce said that the interpretant of any sign is always another sign. He also said

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

Isn't the point of considering anything the end? And isn't the end a practical actionable something (expression, act) that contains the initial sign and the index. In which case the sign would already have been predefined by the logical end, though requiring the cogitative process to get there.

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

On 8/11/2017 5:09 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: A system, I think, is defined by the part of its structure, that does not change. The system exists as long as this part of structure (set of relations) exists. Which part of the structure is used to define the system, can be arbitrary choice, but

Aw: Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

in the sense (meaning) it is used nowadays. I have studied some early cybernetics, then Bertallanffy and Luhman in more detail.     I wrote  Jerry LR Chandler  CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning  was  Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc Armando, List:   Consider the meaning of the chromaticity  (spectra) of 

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

On 8/10/2017 3:23 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: Is Tarski’s approach to the formal logics of metalanguages essential to give coherence to communication with the broad array of modern synthetic symbol systems? By itself, Tarski's version of model theory and metalanguage is not sufficient. But

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

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. I wrote Jerry LR Chandler CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of M

CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

(CORRECTION) Jerry, List. I know well CP2.230 because I translated it to spanish in 1974 and I gave it to Kenneth Ketner at Harvard on 1989. But would need to meditate more time to approach some answer to your queries. Really I don't find correlation among the important peircean statement you

CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

Jerry, List. I know well CP2.230 because I translated it to spanish in 1974 and I took it to Kenneth Ketner to Harvard on 1989. But would need to meditate more time to approach some answer to your queries. Really I don't find correlation among the important peircean statement you refer and the

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

On 8/7/2017 12:07 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: How does the modern notion of a system compare with CSP’s late 19th / early 20 th Century rhetoric? Very directly. Peirce had provided the logical foundation for describing all of them. He didn't have the modern experience with the latest

CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

Armando, List: Consider the meaning of the chromaticity (spectra) of 1,2,3… A, B, C,… H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F, Ne,… A, B, C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C,… (musical scales) nad A, nad B, and nad C, etc, (genetic symbols with closure over a set of genetic symbols that