On page 66 of Fernando Zalamea's *Logic of Continuity (2012),* there is diagram of Peirce's 'perennial' classification of sciences which shows the trichotomy of 1. Mathematics 2. Philosophy 3. Special Sciences in which the third class divides into 3.1 Physics 3.2 Psychics 3.3 "Systemics" (...). While Zalamea makes no mention of this new outgrowth (subclass?) of Idioscopy here, it is somewhat understandable given his concern with demonstrating that a "continuous interpretation" of the classification based on the Gamma graphs provides us with confirmation of the pragmatic maxim's importance to 2.2.3.3 Logic.
Nonetheless, in any earlier paper <http://acervopeirceano.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Zalamea-Peirces-Continuum.pdf> with similar material to his most recent publication, a footnote to a similar diagram of the classification of sciences reads as follows: "Beverley Kent, Charles S. Peirce. Logic and the Classification of Sciences, Montreal: McGill -Queen’s University Press, 1987. The entry 3.3 (“systemics”) does not appear in Peirce. Nevertheless systemics-–in Niklas Luhmann’s sense: a lattice of recursive feedbacks between environments (potential places for hierarchical information) and systems (actual information hierarchies)– seems to complete the classification in a natural way." Given the emergence of possibility, actuality, and necessity transfers, one could argue that Peirce himself would have approved this (potential horotic) evolution in his classification. Regards, Doug On 12/10/2014 2:00 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: > > Ben, Lists, > > The quotes you've provided are helpful to me. I've not yet paid enough > attention to his remarks about the differences between kingdom, phyla, > class, order, family genus and species as these conceptions are applied to > the classification of different sciences. > > Having said that, I was questioning the grounds of Peirce's division of > the class of idioscopic sciences into the subclasses of physical and > psychical. In the 20th century, the division between the physical sciences, > life sciences, and the psychological and social sciences seems quite > prevalent. > > --Jeff Jeff Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > NAU (o) 523-8354 > ________________________________________ > > From: Benjamin Udell > Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 10:18 AM > To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: [biosemiotics:7722] Re: Peirce's classifications > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
