RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

Yes, Peirce says that “meaning is a triadic relation.” But meaning is not a sign. Edwina, you say that a sign is a triadic relation, or a “triad,” while Peirce says that a sign is “a correlate of a triadic relation.” Do you really not see the difference? Likewise with reference to CP 1.540,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

Gary F - see my comments. And, again, if you know of any place where Peirce rejects the triad - please inform us. - Original Message - From: g...@gnusystems.ca To: 'PEIRCE-L' Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2015 9:14 PM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates a

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

context it is possible to select which usage Peirce makes in each case. John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: g...@gnusystems.ca [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 4:14 AM To: 'PEIRCE-L' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

age Peirce makes in each case. John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier *From:*g...@gnusystems.ca [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] *Sent:* Thursday, 26 November 2015 4:14 AM *To:* 'PEIRCE-L' *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations Yes, Peirce

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

On 11/25/15 9:55 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: The fact that you, astonishingly, deny the triadic aspect of Peircean semiosis - is something, again, that I cannot deal with. The fact-of-triadism- is in all of Peirce's work. Even considering the quotes in my last post, Gary F. was basic

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

ollier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: g...@gnusystems.ca <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca] Sent: Thursday, 26 November 2015 4:14 AM To: 'PEIRCE-L' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations Yes, Peirce sa

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

reful about the > context it is possible to select which usage Peirce makes in each case. > > > > John Collier > > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > > > *From:* g...@gnusystems.ca [mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca ] > > *Sent:* Thursday, 26 Nov

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

of 'representamen'. As John Collier said, you have to be careful of the context to see which meaning Peirce was using. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: John Collier To: g...@gnusystems.ca ; 'PEIRCE-L' Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 12:49 AM Subject:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

..and 'every thought is a sign...man is a sign' (5.314) - Original Message - From: g...@gnusystems.ca To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2015 7:33 AM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations Thanks very much for this,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:34 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > Jon, if you can point out where Peirce's text or mine in this thread is > conducive to the kind of confusion you are warning us about, I'll see what I > can do to clarify things. But I don't really have the time for a wild goose > c

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

> On Nov 26, 2015, at 7:44 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Again, Peirce uses the term of 'sign' to refer to both the Representamen and > the full triadic set of relations. You have to be careful of the context to > figure out which one he is referring to. This is definitely true and can thr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Nov 29, 2015, at 9:03 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote: > > I assume this refers to the types of relations one finds in say Duns Scotus. > For those interested the SEP has an entry on medieval theories of relations > that is helpful. > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relations-medieval/ >

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

-15 23:03 To: PEIRCE-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations On Nov 28, 2015, at 10:34 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca <mailto:g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: Jon, if you can point out where Peirce's text or mine in this thread is conducive to the kind of confus

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

cess and takes on an existential material nature. So, that full triad, the Sign, functions and exists as a molecule, a cell, a weathervane, a word, an argument. Edwina - Original Message - From: CLARK GOBLE To: PEIRCE-L Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 11:17 PM Subject:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 6:15 AM, wrote: > > Probably the most common distinction made by Peirce in this connection is > that between real relations and relations of reason Yes, that section of The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus I linked to yesterday goes through that a bit. > “Relations w

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Clark, Gary F, Gary R, lists, Clark quoted Scotus as saying: “ . . .* rose* is not divided into *real roses* and merely (113015-1) *conceptual roses* for they are two modes of being of the same thing.” (The emphasis is added.) Three related terms appear here: 'rose', 'r

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > > f g > Real Rose > Rose ---> Mental Rose > (Firstness) (Secondness) > (Thirdness) >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Agreed. As I've said, I don't agree with confining the term 'sign' to refer > to and only to one single Relation in the whole triad; that of the > Representamen or ground. That transforms this one Relation, the > Representamen, from be

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Triadic Philosophy as I have evolved it over its lifetime tends to agree in with what you have said Clark about the triad. With the following exception which I take to be at least somewhat related to Peirce and perhaps to agree with something I have seen in Edwina's posts. The triadic progression

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:11 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > > Interestingly relative to Scotus the middle voice argument usually is made by > the proponents of analogy against Scotus. Heidegger sees this voice as key to > understanding the pre-socratics (since he’s caught up on Plato being the > sou

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

Clark: On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:11 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > The key to the middle voice is that things happen without necessarily someone > or something making them happen. The actor is just missing. I am uncertain with regard to the meaning of this sentence. The term "middle voice" suggests utt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Hi Clark, you wrote: "So depending upon what one means by structure you’d have that in the third universe." It seems to me that your remark here would be true if all structures are mind (or mentality)-dependent. But I believe that the astrophysical evidence we have suggests that there were struc

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:05 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > It seems to me that your remark here would be true if all structures are mind > (or mentality)-dependent. But I believe that the astrophysical evidence we > have suggests that there were structures in the Universe that existed even > bef

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:03 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > >> Are you suggesting this as an alternative world view relative to physical >> "laws", e.g., the absence of order? > > No, far from it. Rather the argument would be this is what enables laws to > develop. Actually let me clarify that some

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > I am uncertain with regard to the meaning of this sentence. > The term "middle voice" suggests utterances and hence a relation to grammar > and rhetoric and logic. Originally yes. However it related to how we ascribe being and th

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

in essence, I think we are in agreement on all points. Edwina - Original Message - From: Clark Goble To: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 1:11 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations On Nov 30, 2015, at 7:22 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: A

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

the Object" 2.311. And this removes the linearity of actor-acted upon, since instead, we have a complex interactive network where such simple unilinear direction can't be assumed. Edwina - Original Message - From: Clark Goble To: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, November 30

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates and triadic relations

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 12:29 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > I certainly didn't mean to imply that I, myself, thought that the > Representamen functioned as a kind of 'Sovereign Will 'agent. I was instead > suggesting that Gary F's insistence on considering ONLY the Representamen as > 'the Sig

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Stephen, Clark, Edwina, List... I think that I wrote already about this subject... but there are two authors that I like very much that constructed some good 'metaphors' for the understanding of the /triadic relation/. Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser studied Peirce in a Seminar by Farnçois R

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

phy NAU (o) 523-8354 From: Claudio Guerri [claudiogue...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 2:18 PM To: Stephen C. Rose; Clark Goble Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Stephen, Clark, Edwina, List... I thi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

eirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Stephen, Clark, Edwina, List... I think that I wrote already about this subject... but there are two authors that I like very much that constructed some good 'metaphors' for the understanding of the triadic re

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 3:19 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > I always have a problem at this point. Isnt it so, that natural laws and > natural constants havent change at all since the big bang? Depends upon what one means by law. In physics laws are often treated as descriptive rather than presc

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 2:18 PM, Claudio Guerri wrote: > > Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser studied Peirce in a Seminar by Farnçois > Recanati in Paris, France, during the 50's...??? if somebody knows a good > reference, I would be glad to know more about... That’s very interesting. I confess

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 2:33 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > The idea that one sign may be dominant is nicely highlighted in Peirce's > discussion of focusing attention on one thing and letting others fade into > the background. This ability to focus one's attention is, on Peirce's > a

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Clark, I share your scepticism about psychoanalysis John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: CLARK GOBLE [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: Tuesday, 01 December 2015 4:48 AM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

reviewers have done something similar). John Collier Professor Emeritus, UKZN http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: Monday, 30 November 2015 8:10 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:50 AM

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Hi Clark, ". . . * Firstness* is the world of raw experience, ideas or possibility, *secondness* the world (120115-1) of reactions, brute force & actuality and *thirdness* the world of signs, connections and power (not necessarily mental unless one is careful what one means by

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

: Wednesday, 02 December 2015 4:16 AM To: PEIRCE-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Hi Clark, ". . . Firstness is the world of raw experience, ideas or possibility, secondness the world (120115-1) of reactions, brute force & actuality and thir

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > > (1) I agree with you on the definition of these categories of Peirce. > We seem to disagree on how to assign these categories to the three worlds of > Burgin and the three roses of Scotus. I’m not quite sure why you are applying firstness

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Hi Clark, lists, You wrote: "I’m not quite sure why you are applying firstness to structure where structures (120215-1) are inherently relations and firstness is inherently a thing in itself without relations." (*1*) It seems that everybody, including you, John (and

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Sungchul Ji Sent: Thursday, 03 December 2015 12:30 AM To: PEIRCE-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Hi Clark, lists, You wrote: "I’m not quite sure why you are applying firstness to structure where struc

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the sign types > defined in NDTR, including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This flags a > possible ambiguity in the concepts of genuine and degenerate; and possibly > this p

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Clark, Jeff, Gary F, lists, You wrote: " . . . On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the sign types defined in NDTR, (120815-1) including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This flags a possible ambiguity in the concepts of genuine and degenerate; . . . " (*1*) S

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

List, Although I don't see the point or relevance of Sung's (2) and (3), in my opinion a great deal of semiotic confusion *has* been generated by confusing and conflating (1) sign types with sign classes. No doubt Peirce himself contributed to this confusion, although in *some *cases and *in conte

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

other hand, is embodied, in both breadth and depth. Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmond To: Peirce-L Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 4:26 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations List, Although I don't see the point or relevan

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

I) and function in each of the three categorical modes). The Sign, the > full triad, on the other hand, is embodied, in both breadth and depth. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Gary Richmond > *To:* Peirce-L > *Sent:* Tuesday, December 08, 2015 4:26 P

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

9 Relations are not embodied. Instead, they are three Relations (R-O, R-R, R-I) and function in each of the three categorical modes). The Sign, the full triad, on the other hand, is embodied, in both breadth and depth. Edwina - Original Message - From: Gary Richmon

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Hi Gary, lists, You wrote: ". . . I don't see the point or relevance of Sung's (2) and (3), . " These items are reproduced below within quotation marks for convenience: "(*2*) According to the quark model of the Peircean sign discussed in earlier posts, the 9 types of signs (referred to as the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary R, lists, You wrote: "Following a suggestion made by Ben Udell many years ago when I was writing a paper which, in part, meant to distinguish between these sign types and classes, I sometimes refer to sign 'types' as 'parameters' as being closer to Peirce's meaning. This is also why I reje

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Matt Faunce wrote: > > On 12/13/15 6:24 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: >> Human languages differ with respect to the rules of construction and the >> things that can be said, and they also develop and evolve over time; the >> development of a language to the point wh

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Monday, December 14, 2015 11:48 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations On Dec 14, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Matt Faunce wrote: On 12/13/15 6:24 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: Human languages differ with respect to the rules of construction and the things t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > Degenerateness, I think, is a relation too. So, something may be (regarded > for) degenerate, if you look at it as a mode. Because degeneracy is a trait > of modes. But if you look at the same thing regarding it for a sign (a > triadic

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

, 2015 3:01 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations On Dec 16, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Helmut Raulien mailto:h.raul...@gmx.de>> wrote: Degenerateness, I think, is a relation too. So, something may be (regarded for) degenerate, if you look at it as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Clark, Jeffrey, List: Allow me to expand on the nature of my ignorance of the meaning of degeneracy. Clearly, CSP's usage of this term with respect to mathematical objects, that is conic sections, is crisp and meaningful within the Pythagorean-Cartesian perspective of relations. Jeff's referen

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

y, 17 December 2015 01:52 To: Peirce-L Cc: Clark Goble; Jeffrey Brian Downard Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Clark, Jeffrey, List: Allow me to expand on the nature of my ignorance of the meaning of degeneracy. Clearly, CSP's usage of this term with respect to ma

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

R Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2015 01:52 > To: Peirce-L > Cc: Clark Goble; Jeffrey Brian Downard > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > Clark, Jeffrey, List: > > Allow me to expand on the natu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Collier To: Jerry LR Chandler ; Peirce-L Cc: Clark Goble ; Jeffrey Brian Downard Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2015 12:32 AM Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Jerry, I think you are making this seem more mysterious than it is. My understanding is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Dec 16, 2015, at 10:32 PM, John Collier wrote: > > In the passage from Peirce that you quote below, by way of Clark, I think the > distinction is that the degenerate seconds consider them in terms of their > form alone, which degenerates our understanding of them to firsts associated > w

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

meritus, UKZN > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2015 13:10 > To: John Collier > Cc: Peirce-L; Clark Goble; Jeffrey Brian Downard > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relati

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Dec 18, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > "If you have the form but not the matter then it’s degenerate.". Thank you: > This way eventually, after a long time, I think I understand why it is > called degenerate. Yeah, it’s a terminology I kind of struggle with a lot too. I kep

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

; *From:* Clark Goble > *To:* Peirce-L > *Sent:* Monday, December 14, 2015 11:48 AM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > > On Dec 14, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Matt Faunce wrote: > > On 12/13/15 6:24 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > > Human

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

From: Franklin Ransom To: Peirce-L Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 2:48 AM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwina, list, I never meant to imply that language determines thought in toto. So far as all thought is in signs, and a language represents a sys

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

or come up with > their own term. BUT - *cognitively and logically, since we all are the > same species* - then, we can all think the same way. Language - either in > its grammar or its words - does not confine or define us. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:*

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Franklin - thanks for your reply. Please see my comments below: - Original Message - From: Franklin Ransom To: Peirce-L Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 2:53 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwina, I will quote myself from the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

ranklin - thanks for your reply. Please see my comments below: > > - Original Message - > *From:* Franklin Ransom > *To:* Peirce-L > *Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2015 2:53 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > Edwina, > &g

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

e format, language, operates within a grammatical structure expressed in 'bits' or words. Edwina - Original Message - From: Franklin Ransom To: Peirce-L Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

That is to say, the man and the external sign are > identical, in the same sense in which the words *homo* and *man* are > identical. *Thus my language is the sum total of myself; for the man is > the thought.*" > > -- Franklin > > --

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

a - Original Message ----- From: Franklin Ransom To: Peirce-L Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2015 4:40 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwina, My point is that ANY peoples, - since they have the capacity for tho

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Clark, lists, you wrote: "Yet his broad notion of mind and habits actually fits cosmology quite well." I always have a problem at this point. Isnt it so, that natural laws and natural constants havent change at all since the big bang? I like tychism, synechism, and agapism very much though, as

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Clark, list, you wrote: " If you have the form but not the matter then it’s degenerate.". Thank you: This way eventually, after a long time,  I think I understand why it is called degenerate. Maybe it is like this: "matter" may be understood for "reason", like in the question "Whats the matter?",

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

  Supplement: So, degeneracy is not a de-evolution or reverse (de-) generation, but an incomplete or wrong comprehension of how something has been generated (and so the reason why it has), based on the fact, that the generation process is not easily observable, not observable at all, or not observ

Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

'subjective, objective and general' - and these are not valid outlines of the three categories. Edwina - Original Message - From: Sungchul Ji To: PEIRCE-L Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:29 PM Subject: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and tr

Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

; psychological nominals as 'subjective, objective and general' - and these > are not valid outlines of the three categories. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Sungchul Ji > *To:* PEIRCE-L > *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:29 PM > *

Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

to such >> psychological nominals as 'subjective, objective and general' - and these >> are not valid outlines of the three categories. >> >> Edwina >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* Sungchul Ji >> *To:

Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

with information science Edwina - Original Message - From: Sungchul Ji To: PEIRCE-L Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2015 8:35 PM Subject: Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations Edwina, Clark, John, lists You wrote: &q

Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

entality, Diversity,and Unification. World Scientific, New Jersey. Pp. 129-134. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Sung, your comment doesn't make any sense. Because Peirce's three > categories don't correlate to the three worlds of Burgin an

Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

mes, cells, > brains, human societies, and the cosmos. In: *Unified Field Mechanics: > Natural Science * > *beyond the Veil of Spacetime* (R. Amoroso, P. Rowlands, and L. Kauffman, > eds.) > World Scientific, New Jersey, pp. 579-589. >[3] Ji, S. (2012a) Isomorphism between Black

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

List, Clark: On Dec 2, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > I’m not quite sure why you are applying firstness to structure where > structures are inherently relations and firstness is inherently a thing in > itself without relations. > >From my perspective, this argument, ignores the natur

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

: Clark Goble Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity. List, Clark: On Dec 2, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Clark Goble wrote: I'm not quite sure why you are applying firstness to structure where structures are inherently relations and firs

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

> On Dec 2, 2015, at 9:56 AM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > From my perspective, this argument, ignores the nature of nature - that is, > of part whole relationships, known as mereology in logic and philosophy and > as "scaling" in physics. > > A noun is what? a part of a sentence? an obje

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

ltiple symbol systems. If I understand your physical perspective, then I can easy understand why you answer in this way. Cheers Jerry > John Collier > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

Clark: On Dec 2, 2015, at 12:37 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > As I said, I think it all depends upon the type of analysis one is doing. Yes, Yes, Yes! The analyst selects the terms for analysis. This includes the symbol system selected for expressing the analysis. Cheers jerry > >> On Dec 2,

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

PM To: John Collier Cc: Peirce-L; Clark Goble Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity. List, John: On Dec 2, 2015, at 11:39 AM, John Collier wrote: Jerry, there is some very convoluted reasoning in this, but I will try to explain

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

John, You said: The physicalism stems from the Pragmatic Maxim, which makes any difference > in meaning depend on a difference in possible experience together with > Quine’s idea that the physical is just what we can experience. I take it > that the last is also Peirce’s view, and he is no materi

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

/collier From: Franklin Ransom [mailto:pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, 06 December 2015 2:26 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity. John, You said: The physicalism stems from the Pragmatic Maxim, which makes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

List, John: 3.418. "Thus, the question whether a fact is to be regarded as to referring to a single thing or to more is a question of the form of the proposition under which it suits our purposes to state the fact." On Dec 6, 2015, at 6:26 AM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at

RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] Sent: Sunday, 06 December 2015 7:13 PM To: Peirce-L Cc: John Collier Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity. List, John: 3.418. "Thus, the question whether a fact is to be reg

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

List, John: On Dec 6, 2015, at 8:04 AM, John Collier wrote: > Peirce has a specific view of experience. Meaning has to be referenced to > something, and that something cannot be internal (mental in one sense), or > we go in circles (which is acceptable to some philosophers, but not to > Peirc

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

John, I don't think I have any significant disagreement with much of what you've had to say concerning Peirce's commitment to the external element in experience. I am curious though as to whether you believe you experience external minds, and if so, whether you would count them as physical? I feel

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

List, Franklin, Frederik: The OUP book, The Structure of Objects by Kathrin Koslicki (2008) addresses some of the philosophy that appears to be difficult to understand. More particularly, it illuminates the triad, sinsign, index and dicisign in relation to parts of the whole, the illation b

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

Hi, I feel a need to point out that "sinsign, index and dicisign" presents a trichotomy of signs. Not a triad, but a tree-part division, a classification, if you wish. All triads and triadicity involve mediation. Triadicity also involves meaning, not just signs. Kirsti Jerry LR Chandler

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

Kirsti, Jerry, list, Kirsti is generally correct. I remember years ago at peirce-l when Orliaguet made the same point (with superfluous sarcasm) to Kirsti. He quoted a passage by Peirce that required understanding the term "triad" to refer to the three correlates in triadic action with one ano

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

Ben, list Ben, you wrote: ".[Orliaguet ]. . .. quoted a passage by Peirce that required understanding the term "triad" to refer to the three correlates in triadic action with one another — sign-object-interpretant — and not to any other trichotomy (three-way division); otherwise the passage by Pe

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

List, Kirsti, Ben: I am a bit puzzled by these responses, which appear strange to my way of thinking. By the standards of some, I am not a “Peircer”. My aim is bio-medical reserch on specific quantitative issues; the writings of CSP are studied in order to contribute to my understanding of t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

Gary, Kirsti, list, You wrote, "I've been a little "out of it" post surgery, but did someone earlier quote that passage? In any event, I can't find it in this thread." I was referring to a post by Orliaguet from many years ago, but nobody else quoted it in the thread. I tried a few years ago

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

Ben, List: > On Feb 2, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > It contains (in terms of the three-trichotomy system, and borrowing the > italicized terms from Liszka): > 1. the second division from the _presentative_ trichotomy (sign's relation to > itself), > 2. the second division fro

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

Jerry, CSP did use divisions into three, so trichotomies do belong to his philosophy. Only in his latest phase he devoted himself to developing triadicity as his key concept in his theory of the Categories. So, trichotomies of signs, such as icon, index, symbol etc. are OK. But only for the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the meaning of unity.

List, The argument given in Matt's email below is problematic. I will raise a question and make a brief and casual effort to place a Peircian interpretation on symbolic communication in terms of current scientific terminology. While human language is a very powerful source of human communica

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the meaning of unity.

On 12/14/15 8:00 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: 1. Mathematical equations can be read as sentences, but when the number of terms is large, the reader must evaluate the individual symbols as units of the whole and as the unity (wholeness of the equation) for the message to be communicated. This

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the meaning of unity.

On 12/14/15 8:00 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: List, The argument given in Matt's email below is problematic. I will raise a question and make a brief and casual effort to place a Peircian interpretation on symbolic communication in terms of current scientific terminology. While human langu

  1   2   >