RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

fi> > To: "Auke van Breemen" <a.bree...@chello.nl> > Cc: <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 9:20 AM > Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > >> Dear Auke, >> >> I got

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

interpretants (mental, physical), next the logical (immediate, dynamical and normal). In short: The semiotic sheet is needed if we want to get a hold on the process of interpretation. Best, Auke VAN: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] VERZONDEN: woensdag 19 oktober 2016 21:18 AAN: Au

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

, I always was of the opinion, that it is the game you play > and I value that. > > With gratitude, > > Auke > > > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: kirst...@saunalahti.fi [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi] > Verzonden: maandag 24 oktober 2016 15:21 > Aan: Auke van

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

...@saunalahti.fi] Verzonden: maandag 24 oktober 2016 15:21 Aan: Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> CC: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Onderwerp: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Dear Auke, I got very delighted by your response! Right now, I have very littl

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Edwina, List: > > ET: After all, chaos IS something - i.e., it is the absence of order within > a collection of bits of unorganized matter. > > Not according to Peirce--he explicitly held that chaos is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

a> > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Monday, October 24, 2016 10:43 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > Edwina, List: > > ET: After all, chaos IS something - i.e., it is the absence of order > within a col

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: ET: After all, chaos IS something - i.e., it is the absence of order within a collection of bits of unorganized matter. Not according to Peirce--he explicitly held that chaos is nothing. CSP

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

t; non-immanent, as some would suggest, but, a fundamental immenent aspect of > the conversion of mass to matter. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - From: <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> > To: "Auke van Breemen" <a.bree...@chello.nl> > Cc: <peirce-l@list.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Auke: > On Oct 24, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Auke van Breemen wrote: > > “It is my contention that although Peirce had a keen eye on both strains of > thought and enterprise, he was hampered in building a system of semiotics by > his preference for the communal or scientific

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

- Original Message - From: <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> To: "Auke van Breemen" <a.bree...@chello.nl> Cc: <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2016 9:20 AM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Dear Auke,

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

ic sheet is needed if we want to get a hold on the process of interpretation. Best, Auke VAN: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] VERZONDEN: woensdag 19 oktober 2016 21:18 AAN: Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> CC: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu ONDERWERP: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Univ

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

...@gmail.com] Verzonden: zondag 23 oktober 2016 23:07 Aan: Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> CC: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Auke, list: I think what you just said is expressible by seeking

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

.@gmail.com] > *Verzonden:* zondag 23 oktober 2016 21:27 > *Aan:* Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> > *CC:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Onderwerp:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > > > Auke, Kirsti, list: > &g

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

ideal, but by other interests. Best, Auke Van: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] Verzonden: zondag 23 oktober 2016 21:27 Aan: Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> CC: Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

in it. Those partial ideas are > > really not in the first > > > > idea, in itself, though they are separated out from it. It is a case > > of destructive distillation. > > > > W6:449, CP 1.384 > > > > So, interpretation sets of with a collection

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

a series of > feelings (CP > > 5.475). > > From this further interpretants may evolve. First the energetive > interpretants (mental, physical), next the logical (immediate, > dynamical and normal). > > In short: The semiotic sheet is needed if we want to get a hold

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jeff, list Thanks. That is also my impression, but I was not sure. Søren From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 22. oktober 2016 05:29 To: Søren Brier Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Søren, List: SB

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

woensdag 19 oktober 2016 21:18 AAN: Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> CC: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu ONDERWERP: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Auke, List: AB: As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no conclusions. Yes, P

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

ct: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Jeff, List: JD: I believe that all of Peirce's tripartite distinctions between the classes of signs in the 66-fold system are based on the division between possibles, existents and necessitants. That is certainly the do

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Søren, List: SB: I can see that Peirce has a kind of Zero field from which both matter and mind arises as sort of continuum – difficult to imagine – or inside and outside, which I find easier to comprehend and fits

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Søren, List: I am still not sure exactly what you are asking, or what climate change has to do with it. Peirce's cosmogony/cosmology conceives the second Universe of Brute Actuality (including physical matter

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

; > *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 21. oktober 2016 01:17 > *To:* Søren Brier > *Cc:* Jon Alan Schmidt; Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > > > Soren, list: > > > >

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Sorry my last mail was an answer to Jerry not Jeff Søren From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] Sent: 21. oktober 2016 01:17 To: Søren Brier Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt; Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Soren, list: I

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Soren, list: I don’t see why you’re having problems with seeing how this is possible without a recognition of the independent reality of embodied conscious subjects living in language and culture. Could you not simply

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

opic process ontology the categories will develop into worlds. Søren From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com<mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com>] Sent: 20. oktober 2016 15:34 To: Søren Brier Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosm

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

: Thursday, October 20, 2016 10:28 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: The idea is that the Immediate Interpretant can be a range of possible feelings, actions, or thoughts; the Dynamic Interpretant can be an occurrence of an actual

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

? Best Søren From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu] Sent: 20. oktober 2016 15:50 Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Soren, Jon S, Gary R, Soren suggests there are two problems with Peirce's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

into worlds. > > > > Søren > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 20. oktober 2016 15:34 > *To:* Søren Brier > *Cc:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology)

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

I suggest that in a phaneroscopic process ontology the categories will develop into worlds. Søren From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 20. oktober 2016 15:34 To: Søren Brier Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Auke, List: AB: The immediate interpretant always is specific for a given response as Short has it. That is not how I understand it. The Immediate Interpretant is internal to the Sign, and corresponds to what Peirce at least once called "the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

of > 'fine-tuning' and so - can only question the supposition. I'm not sure... > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Thur

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

, October 20, 2016 9:31 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Auke, List: I am familiar with the Sheet of Assertion in the Existential Graphs, and I reviewed both De Tienne's paper and yours from 2007 yesterday. My initial response is that I do

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

16 00:09 > *To:* Gary Richmond > *Cc:* Peirce-L > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's > Cosmology) > > > > Gary R., List: > > GR: It seems to me that the Universes are a metaphysical expression *of* the > categories, and not at

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

gt; From this further interpretants may evolve. First the energetive > interpretants (mental, physical), next the logical (immediate, dynamical > and normal). > > > > In short: The semiotic sheet is needed if we want to get a hold on the > process of interpretation. > > >

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

it is fair to say that the categories do form three distinct different universes. Best Søren From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] Sent: 20. oktober 2016 00:09 To: Gary Richmond Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

an: Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> CC: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Auke, List: AB: As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no conclusions. Yes, Peirce was right to call

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

eff > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > > ---------- > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2016 7:42 AM > *

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

bject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) List: While reviewing the letters to Lady Welby that are in EP 2.477-491, I noticed that Peirce only explicitly employed his terms for the constituents of the three Universes (Possibles/Existents/Necessitants) to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Gary R., List: GR: It seems to me that the Universes are a metaphysical expression *of* the categories, and not at all a complete break from them. Do you agree? Yes; I actually see no significant inconsistency between your statement here and Jappy's hypothesis that Peirce changed theoretical

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon, List, I'm not sure I can fully agree with Jappy's/Short's analysis, at least when the language Jappy uses seems to imply that the three Universes represent a break *from* the categories. It seems to me that the Universes are a metaphysical expression *of* the categories, and not at all a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

- From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:00 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: ET: I'm not sure what you mean by 'the latter is still divisible

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 3:39 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: ET: As i said repeatedly, the categories are not the same as the universes and the universes are therefore not a 'mature' or 'better

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

- Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2016 3:02 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peir

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

ons: 1-1, 2-2, 2-1; 3-3, 3-2, 3-1. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 19, 2016 2:28 PM > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

.iupui.edu Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Edwina, List: ET: I read this section On Signs and the Categories [see 8.327 and on, and also in the previous section [William James, Signs] 8.314-a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Auke, List: AB: As Tom Short remarked about Peirce’s semiotics: much groping, no conclusions. Yes, Peirce was right to call himself "a pioneer, or rather a backwoodsman, in the work of clearing and opening up what I call semiotic" (CP 5.488; 1907). AB: I in particular disagree with your:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

-R; I-I, D-I and > F-I. PLUS the fact that each of these can be in any one of SIX > categorical modesprovides a vastly complex and adaptive morphological > semiosis. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> &

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

.iupui.edu Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 10:42 AM Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) List: While reviewing the letters to Lady Welby that are in EP 2.477-491, I noticed that Peirce only explicitly employed his terms for the constituents of