Edwina, List,
you know, one of my favourite topics is that of the distinction between classification and composition (following Stanley N. Salthe). In this respect I have come to the conclusion, that degeneration only is a matter of classification, like in the sign classes (I write classification subcategories with an oblique, and composition subcategories with a dot). In classification the first subcategories are: 1/1, 1/2, 1/3, 2/1, 2/2, 2/3, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3. Like the sign classes. But in composition, e.g. S, IO, DO, II, DI, FI, or also in primisense, altersense, medisense, the composition of consciousness, the first subclasses are: 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3. Because here it is composition, you cannot speak of degeneracy, is my opinion. Parts are not degenerate, only classes may be. A cogwheel is not a degenerate gearbox, but a mule may be seen as a degenerate rodent, because it cannot see very well.
Best,
Helmut
23. August 2018 um 17:43 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca>
John, list
Agreed - my point is that the world is more complex than a simple set of two or even three terms. That's why Peirce expanded his categories into their genuine and degenerate modes.
I would think that Peirce's top-level would be Mind [pure Mind, 3-3 which is aspatial and atemporal].
Then, one would move into spatial and temporal existentialities...of rest of the modes [3-2, 3-1, 2-2, 2-1, 1-1]
However - this is an interesting exploration - but, my focus is more on the pragmatic application of Peircean semiosis...ie. what happens when an environmental stress requires a species to adapt its knowledge base and change its mode of existence...
Edwina
On Thu 23/08/18 11:25 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
Jon AS and Edwina,
JAS
> I am curious--why insist on a dichotomy, when Peirce clearly advocated
> a trichotomy? Signs and conditional necessity (3ns) are just as
> distinct from pure mathematics and possibility (1ns) as existence and
> actuality (2ns).
Yes, of course. But if we have that pair signs/reality, we can put
the trichotomy on the left-hand side.
If you call it transcendental/physical, following Wilkins, we
can put pure mathematics, signs, and metaphysics on the left.
But the current ISO proposal (by a philosopher named Barry Smith)
has only one mode of existence. That is why he uses the term
'information artifact'. He can't allow a quantified variable to
refer to information by itself because it doesn't "exist". He
allows tokens, but no types.
The attached diagram bfo_cat.jpg shows the top-level Entity divided
in two branches, Continuant and Occurrent. Everything that exists
must be forced in one of those two branches.
There is no room for mathematics, signs, laws, habits, goals, purposes,
intentionality -- unless they're forced into some physical instance.
According to BFO, an intention is something inside the brain of some
animal. But a token of the statement of the intention would be an
information artifact.
ET
> What about Peirce's Six Categorical modes: - which makes the world
> a rather complex place.
My goal is to get ISO to approve a new top level with just a simple
two-way split, such as Transcendental/Physical, with the BFO hierarchy
placed under Physical. As I said before, you can call the pair of
terms Logos/Physis, Dharma/Maya, or Dao/Ten-Thousand-Things. (By the
way, the New Testament in Chinese translates 'logos' as 'dao'.)
Getting that split would open the door to more detailed proposals
for the left-hand side. But the first step to convince people that
such a split is needed. A good pair of terms would be helpful.
John
----------------------------- 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 .
