Jon, Jerry, List,
We had discussed this issue many times before. R 669 was an attempt by Peirce
to relate all the versions of EGs he had written, published, and toyed with.
The result (R 669) was a hodge-podge that had many ad hoc constructions that
Peirce was unable to justify by any convin
Jerry, Jon, List,
There is no single theory by Peirce that can explain everything. For any
particular quotation, it's important to study the context to determine which
theory (or theories) Peirce was using when he wrote that paragraph.
JLRC> We seem to be on different wavelengths... It seems
Jerry, List:
JLRC: The classical logic of mathematical reasoning (symbolized by five
signs - negation, conjunction, disjunction, material conditional, and
bi-conditional.
Actually, Peirce points out that only two signs are needed as primitives,
with the others being derived from them.
CSP: Out
Helmut, list
I’m not sure of your point.
Peirce is here writing about consciousness - and I think that not all, indeed,
a great portion of the universe’s semiosic triads have little to do with
‘consciousness. That is, in the physics-chemical and biological realms, the
semiosic process is a v
Thanks for your answer.
We seem to be on different wavelengths.
> On Jan 11, 2024, at 12:24 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> We can substitute "headache," "orange," or any other common noun for "camel"
> in this passage.
It seems to me that there is a profound distinction between a categor
Jerry - frankly - I’ve never been a fan of Robert Rosen ; my reference to
entropy was more along the lines of Prigogine.
And yes- I consider that signs can be understood within the outline of the
Aristotlean syllogism. ..but I don’t see this triad as confined to the symbolic
realm of language.
> On Jan 11, 2024, at 11:28 AM, Edwina Taborsky
> wrote:
>
> But you already know this
Edwinia:
If I understood the meaning of the “triadic relations”, I would not waste my
time attempting to frame precise questions and intensely analyzing the
grammatical structures of your and other r
Jerry, List:
Every word is a token of a type--in Peirce's 1903 taxonomy, a replica of a
rhematic symbol or symbolic rheme, and therefore a peculiar kind of
rhematic indexical sinsign.
CSP: Eighth, a Rhematic Symbol, or Symbolic Rheme, is a sign connected with
its Object by an association of gener
Edwina, list,
what about primisense, altersense, medisense? Three entities in one person. E.g. I have a headache (feeling, primisense), then I remember, that coffee can help (memory from altersense), then I think, I should drink one (thinking, medisense).
Best, Helmut
Gesendet: Donners
Helmut, List:
HR: A sign (1) cannot determine an interpretant (3).
On the contrary, the sign not only *can*, but *always does* determine the
interpretant. One more time ...
CSP: I will say that a sign is anything, of whatsoever mode of being, which
mediates between an object and an interpretant
jerryYes- you can feel a headache without going through the rather complicated analysis that it’s a triadic experience.No- I don’t think the triad requires ‘exterior objects’ in the sense of being external to the person. You can mutter through your own thoughts all alone! But I think the notion of
Helmet- the triadic process - ie the sign meditation is taking place within the persons mind. EdwinaSent from my iPhoneOn Jan 11, 2024, at 11:43 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:Edwina, List.Very interesting response.The absence of Persian terminology about semiotics is notable.In other words, I can h
Edwina, List.Very interesting response.The absence of Persian terminology about semiotics is notable.In other words, I can have a feeling of a headache Without any notion of triadicity!uThe question becomes one of the role of cognition in creating descriptions of experiences.Does this suggest to yo
Suppsupplement: And I am not the only one: Vincent Colapietro in a paper in the internet wrote:
"So, Peirce in his investigation of signs considered signs in themselves, in their secondness (i.e., in relationship to their object or other), and in their thirdness (i.e., in relations
Supplement: And, I did not insist, that "a first, a second, a third" belong to modal categories, but to categories. Of course I know the difference between modality and the composition of a sign triad.
Edwina, what you wrote, is exactly what I wrote: That determination, or, as you
Edwina, what you wrote, is exactly what I wrote: That determination, or, as you wrote, production, cannot go upward in category number: A sign (1) cannot determin an interpretant (3). Therefore I suggested, that the interpreter´s mind (3) rather is the determining entity. Now I must add, that all "
Jerry - list
Ii think you yourself know the answer - but…let’s say, the word ‘ headache’ =
or any sound
1] If you have, within your mind, a developed, learned knowledge base that
recognizes this sound as having-a-meaning-, then, the triadic interaction is:
Sound-> Memory or Knowledge Base -> M
17 matches
Mail list logo
