List, Helmut: I am bit puzzled by your message.
What is the definition of “emanations” that you are thinking of? Do you consider emanations necessarily spatial? While I can easily imagine a “set” of emanations, such a set would not be emanations; the physicality of the emanations can not be represented in an abstract set because the the identity of the emanations has physical attributes that are lost in the representation as a set of mathematical objects, e.g., points. Or, otherwise, what is your interpretation? You write: > A sign functionally consists of sign, object, interpretant, and an object > functionally consists of immediate and dynamical object. This suggests to me that you completely reject the last few sentences in CP 2.230. Was that your intent? Cheers Jerry > On Sep 25, 2017, at 3:29 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Jerry, List, > I think there are different kinds of composition, meaning of being a part of > something/ to consist of something. E.g. there is spatial and functional > composition. The terms "external", "internal", and I guess "emanation" too > can be used for spatial composition only. I guess that set theory also only > applies to spatial composition. But signs are not spatially but functionally > composed. A sign functionally consists of sign, object, interpretant, and an > object functionally consists of immediate and dynamical object. So the sign > functionally consists of the dynamical object too, but spatially it does not, > because the dynamical object is external to the sign (spatially). The sign > functionally consists of itself and other things: the object and the > interpretant. This is not possible in set theory and in spatial composition, > but in functional composition it is: It is a re-entry situation like in a > loop in a computer program, like "x=x+1". I have started writing a blog about > different kinds of composition, power, and classification (about > hierarchies): www.signs-in-time.de . Though what I have just written here > will only appear in the next chapter I have not yet written. > Best, > Helmut > > 25. September 2017 um 21:44 Uhr > "Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@mac.com> > wrote: > > [PEIRCE-L] Re: Interpretations of the Meaning of Pragmatisism (edited) > (The composition of this message was interrupted by events and was > inadvertently sent prematurely. Several edits widen the scope of the message > and contain additional concepts.) > > On Sep 25, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@mac.com > <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@mac.com>> wrote: > > List: > > Earlier in the summer, several posts addressed the meanings of CP2.230 > (1910). The topic of interest is the meaning of the term “emanations”. I > interpret emanations as signs from emanative sources exterior to the > “observer" or any (mechanical) recipient of the emanative signs. In other > words, the generative object that gives forth the emanations is not only > exterior to the observer, it is also physically real. CP2.230 (1910) stands > behind the subjective meanings of the logical terms of “quali-sign, sin-sign > and legi-signs”. These three categories of sign terms have no a priori > mathematical content and bare no simple relation to mathematical symbolism. > As most readers know, these terms were coined by CSP as source terms for his > relational semantic logic. These terms apparently denote the potential for > interpreting the emanations as icons, indices and symbols. The specific > examples of these terms stand behind the logical synthesis of propositions > (rhema, dicisigns, argument) for logical argumentation such that “true/false” > assertions are valid. Some authors refer to this chain of reasoning as > "emanative causality”. > > > With the above paragraph a merely a quick and dirty summary of a very perplex > topic, I ask, how does “emanative causality” relate to the various > definitions of pragmatism? The following reference opens an analytical > discussion of three formulations of the meaning of the pragmatic maxim. Of > particular importance is the discussion of the grammatical forms that relate > indicative and imperative sentences. > > MIDWEST STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY > v. 28 #1, Sept 2004, pp. 119-136 > Christopher Hookway. “The principle of pragmatism: Peirce’s formulations and > examples.” > > > > I note in passing that in modern chemical logic, emanative causality is used > to establish the electrical nature of the chemical bond and hence the > structural patterns of atoms in molecules. This logical usage differs from > the concept of the relations between atomic sentences and molecular > sentences introduced by B. Russell. Thus, emanative causality (the causality > associated with signs) contributes to understanding the distinctions between > CSP’s notions of graph theory and modern mathematical graph theory based on > set theory, functions and mappings. > > The Hookway reference sheds some light on last summer's discussions of > CP2.230 (1910) and could be of interest to at least two contributors to this > list serve. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > ----------------------------- 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 > <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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
