BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list - yes, makes sense. Yes - I meant the internal Sign
triadAnd yes, the three correlates are in 'other Sign
relations'enables diversity
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus
Edwina, List:
ET: A large issue is the definition of 'sign'. Is it the representamen
alone? Or is it the triad of the Immediate Object-Represntamen-Immediate
Interpretant? Or is it even larger - and includes the Dynamic Object?
I believe that our recent joint resolution to use "Sign" only for t
Edwina, Jon S, List,
First, I will have to disagree with you, Edwina, on one point since I think
the three pronged spoke *does *exactly represent a triadic relation, not
three relations (how do you figure that?) As I see it, the single node from
which the three spokes protrude make it one relation
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Yes, that's what I've been mulling over for years - where I think
that there are three relations rather than one triadic relation.
A large issue is the definition of 'sign'. Is it the representamen
alone? Or is
Edwina, Jon S, List,
Edwina wrote:
But what about: ."the interpretant of a proposition is its predicate"
5.474. This moves the laws, so to speak, which I have located in the
Representamen - to the Interpretant! So- I have no idea...for I tend to
see the Interpretant as a result of the actions of
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }see
my comments
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Wed 12/04/17 1:59 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
ET: BUT - to be clear, I still see this internal triad as ONE SET of three
irreducible Relations. I suspect that you don't see this internal triad as
made up of Relations, while I still see it that way - although the bond is
so tight that none of the three can be seen as 'individual
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list
1) The Representamen does carry the general habits; that is, where
are these generals located in a 'thing'? I'll take the example of a
cell; its habits, which function to mould its material content and
Edwina, Jon, List,
I agree, that a molecule (and an atom, a particle...) is a token. But, when something happens with this molecule due to a natural law, eg. the law of gravitation, is then the spatial section of this law that works upon the molecule a token of the law? I was thinking no, because
Helmut,
Your idea of “self-defined bodies” is essentially the “autopoiesis” of Maturana
and Varela, and the idea of final causation being intrinsic to animate bodymind
is shared by Gregory Bateson and, I think, by Peirce. My book Turning Signs
joins these concepts with Robert Rosen’s concept
expression of the “wonder of creation.”
>
> https://religiousnaturalism.org/
>
>
>
> gary f.
>
>
>
> *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
> *Sent:* 8-Apr-17 19:37
> *To:* Peirce List ; Eugene Halton <
> eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu>
> *
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs
Gene - I would agree with your D.H. Lawrence quote. And as I often quote from
Peirce,
"Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in the work of
bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical
Gene, List:
Your comments are well-taken. I did not mean to imply that the growth of
knowledge is the *only *manifestation of the growth of reasonableness,
although I now can see how it came across that way.
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosoph
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Gene - I would agree with your D.H. Lawrence quote. And as I often
quote from Peirce,
"Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in
the work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely ph
Dear Edwina,
Thanks, but it was not so perfectly. The last Peirce phrase should be
“reasonableness energizing in the world.”
Not “universe.”
I’m glad you thought my words expressed what you were trying to say, given
that I am not an atheist, perhaps something closer to a “religious
atheist,” tho
John Sowa: “But every kind of Thirdness must be learned by abduction.
Observation can only detect post hoc. Propter hoc is an abduction. An
infant observes patterns in the parents' babbling, imitates the babbling,
and discovers that certain patterns bring rewards.”
The expectations for communic
Gary F., List:
GF: In Baldwin’s Dictionary, Peirce defined “symbol” as “A SIGN (q.v.)
which is constituted a sign merely or mainly by the fact that it is used
and understood as such, whether the habit is natural or conventional, and
without regard to the motives which originally governed its sele
John S., Helmut, List:
Of course, Peirce famously argued for the *Reality *of God, not the *existence
*of God. He explained why in one of the manuscript drafts of "A Neglected
Argument."
CSP: Thus, He is so much like a mind, and so little like a singular
Existent (meaning by an Existent, or obj
Edwina, List:
ET: Nowhere in this section does Peirce write that the purpose of Reason
is the 'growth of knowledge about both God and the universe'.
I did not suggest that this was "the purpose of Reason," but that it is
"God's purpose" as "the development of Reason." CP 1.615 (1903) continues
, the Ens necessarium/Creator God you believe in
may not be the same as the agency God that Edwina disbelieves in.
Gary f.
From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com]
Sent: 8-Apr-17 14:21
To: Gary Fuhrman
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list: And here is a key difference.
Jon wrote: "As I mentioned in the other thread, I take it to be the
summum bonum--the "development of Reason," which is the growth of
knowledge about both God and the uni
Gary F., List:
There is much to digest here. As you quoted, Peirce called the universe "a
great symbol of God's purpose, working out its conclusions in living
realities" (CP 5.119; 1903). This suggests to me that "God's purpose" is
the Object of the universe as Symbol, and "living realities" cons
Edwina, Gary F., List:
GF: Now, “that Universe being precisely an argument” (EP2:194), the laws
of nature would have to be the “leading principles” which are “working out
its conclusions in living realities” (EP2:193). These are clearly symbols,
though not conventional, and (as constituents of an
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list - hmm - that is interesting and I'd agree; the Dynamic
Object of a law of nature [which is Thirdness] is also Thirdness.
This enables individual organisms, when they interact with another
external organism, to
Gary F - Thanks for the quotation. I have only part of the EP2 - and
those pages weren't included. I do prefer the CP collection.
No- I am not assuming that the object of a metaphorical sign isn't
real. I am sure that it can be/IS real. That's not my point. - which
was to question first
25 matches
Mail list logo
