BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
I fully agree with your admiration for Peircean classification. I'm
not against it. I'm not saying that his classifications don't cover
everything!
My point - which you don't seem to get, is that I wonder if this
list will ever move beyond debates [and again, I consider them
debates and not discussions] about classification and terminology,
into the 'mud and dirt' to see exactly HOW these terms and
classifications function to enlighten us as to what is going on in
the real phenomenological world.
And yes - I agree with you, that anything that is 'mental', is a
semiosic Sign..and that includes any Mind.
Edwina
On Thu 13/09/18 11:05 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
Edwina and Jon AS,
ET
> My concern is that this list seems to focus almost exclusively
> on debates about terminology and classification of research areas,
> and doesn't venture outside the seminar room into the mud and dirt
> of the real matter-as-mind world.
Peirce had a long career in science and engineering. He certainly
knew how to apply mathematics and science to build things and make
them work. And his engineering work influenced what he wrote about
the practical sciences in his classifications.
One reason why I like Peirce's classification is that it shows
how all the sciences are related to each other, to mathematics,
to philosophy, to the methodeutic that "digs in the dirt" to
discover facts, and to the practical sciences that build things.
If you can find anything "in the mud and dirt" that it doesn't
cover, I'd like to see that.
> JFS: The subject matter of phenomenology is the totality of signs
> that appear to the mind, and CP 1.300 calls the semiotic
categories
> "conceptions drawn from the logical analysis of thought".
>
> JAS: This does not seem right to me; it presupposes that anything
> that appears to the mind must be a Sign.
Two points: (1) if the phaneron contains anything that is not
a sign, semiotic could be defined as the study of the signs in
phenomenology. (2) In any case, it's hard to imagine anything
that appears to the mind that is not a sign. If Peirce ever said
that there are things in the mind, in thought, or in the phaneron
that are not signs, I'd like to see the quotation.
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 .
