RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

2014-08-04 Thread John Collier
Thanks Gary, We have probably taken this as far as we can right now. Interesting that you disagree with Joe as well on this point, as it was correspondence with him that led me to overcome my resistance to firsts. Perhaps I will have an insight like Peirce in 1902; perhaps not. As far as inferenc

[PEIRCE-L] book lists

2014-08-04 Thread Benjamin Udell
List, The "Books till 2005" http://www.cspeirce.com/pastbooks.htm list now has 60 books, and the "New & Recent Books" (2006-2014) http://www.cspeirce.com/newbooks.htm list now has 91. I'm not done yet. I don't know how many people care about the following, but I've made both pages more "acce

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

2014-08-04 Thread Stephen C. Rose
Maybe I am doing a phaneron and calling it a first. Qui sait? But this am I took with me to the treadmill where I do these musement things the feeling of foreboding. That it was real I have no doubt regardless of whether we call it real or psychological - the latter (I posit) a designation Nietzsch

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

2014-08-04 Thread John Collier
Edwina, I am aware that Peirce can be interpreted as thinking we can be aware of firsts as unclassified “feels”. This is what I think led C.I. Lewis (among other considerations) to describe uninterpreted experiences as “ineffable”. I don’t see the sense of this, but I do think we can abstract f

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

2014-08-04 Thread Sungchul Ji
Gary F wrote: ". . . firstness, secondness and thirdness are (6231-1) elements of every phenomenon as Peirce put it, . . . . " This is also how I understood firstness, secondness, and thirdness based on my brief readings of Peirce's originals and secondary sources. In other words, I bel

[PEIRCE-L] Natural Propositions as the basis for biosemiotics

2014-08-04 Thread Gary Fuhrman
Edwina, list, I think we'll have space to discuss these finer points within the Stjernfelt seminar, and as your last line suggests, we should leave them until then, so that we'll be starting out on the same page, as it were. In the tentative schedule attached, I've given September 1 as a st

RE: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

2014-08-04 Thread Gary Fuhrman
John, list, I agree that no phenomenon can be a "pure first", but for the reason that firstness, secondness and thirdness are elements of every phenomenon (or as Peirce put it, of the phaneron). However I disagree with your belief that "we infer the existence of firsts from a theory of signs."