Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8567] Re: Natural
Dear Jerry , lists - You conclude your posting below saying BTW, I am fully aware that this synthesis of CSP's tactics is very remote from Frederik's views in "Natural Propositions". Yet it coheres with many of Frederik's precepts in his analysis of meaning of Diagrams. It certainly does cohere – I am not sure this resume of P's "tactics" is really remote from my views in the NP book, quite on the contrary … Best F Fra: Jerry LR Chandler mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com>> Svar til: Jerry LR Chandler mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com>> Dato: mandag den 4. maj 2015 18.45 Til: Peirce-L 1 mailto:PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>> Cc: Frederik Stjernfelt mailto:stj...@hum.ku.dk>> Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8567] Re: Natural List, Frederik: On May 4, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Howard Pattee wrote: How do the Peircean signs and triads avoid facing the subject-object relation (which Peirce himself called "obscure and mysterious")? Howard has posed an excellent and incisive question with far-ranging implications! Thanks. It seems to me that CSP uses several strategies to avoid the grammatical "conundrum" that is counter intuitive to his world view. The "subject-object" argument is hardly more than a grammatical "red herring" anyway. The semantics of "subject-objects" reduces the verb to a secondary role in logic. CSP's logic focuses primarily on the meaning of verbs in associating logical terms, such as his diagram of "lover-benefactor" relations where both terms are derived from verbs. CSP logical tactics appear to include: 1. presume that all logical terms are copula (in the sense of his "medads" role in sentences). This grammatical construct of logical relations is intrinsic to the grammatical form of antecedent-consequent propositions of the Stoics. 2. presume that an "icon" represents the relations within a discourse. 3. uses the term "index" in a vague manner, extremely vaguely, but consistent with its semantic roots. 4. creating the term "rhema" to construct relations among parts of the whole sentence, medads, complete terms in an argument or subsets of the argument. 5. creating the term "dicisign" to construct indexical relations among icons represented in the rhema. Tactics one and two are entailed by his existential interpretation of matter as relatives. Tactic three allows logical terms to be players in the theatre of the mind, they set the stage for the genesis of relations, more specifically, electrical relations in the sense of Porphyry's per accidens. Tactics four and five are modal terms essential to entailments of symbols and legisigns to generate a sinsign. (See my earlier posts for an interpretation of the trichotomy as an associative graph.) If one constrains one's concept of logic to grammatical "subject-object" terminology, one excludes many (if not most) of the constructive arguments used in CSP writings. CSP's innovative tactics "Led the charge" in the decimation of this traditional grammatical terminology as a critical component of his logic of relatives. This interpretation is a further example of the chemo-centric basis of CSP's existential logic which persists in his existential graphs and other assertions defining his concept of relatives. Had I had had these five tactics as actors on stage in the theatre of my mind when I wrote the ratiocinations for the perplex number system, the play would have unfolded differently. BTW, I am fully aware that this synthesis of CSP's tactics is very remote from Frederik's views in "Natural Propositions". Yet it coheres with many of Frederik's precepts in his analysis of meaning of Diagrams. Cheers Jerry - 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 .
[PEIRCE-L] Can it be that God is irreducibly triadic, a Peircean sign, and a mathematical category ?
Hi, There are many definitions of God or its equivalents (Substance, Form, Dao, Gnergy, etc.) but all of these abstract nouns may share one thing in common, namely, the IRREDUCIBLE TRIADICITY. That is, these concepts may not be completely described without employing three mutually linked terms, concepts, or principles, like Borromean rings. This idea can be diagrammatically represented as follows, which I hope is self-explanatory: f g God as Possibility --> God as Actuality ---> God as Regularity (Firstness) (Secondness) (Thirdness) [Object] [Representamen] [Interpretant] | ^ | | || h Figure 1. The hypothesis that God is irreducibly triadic and hence is a Peircean sign as well as a mathematical category. f = ontogenesis (?); g = epistogenesis (?); h = grounding, proof, truth (?) In the Peirce-L post dated May 8, 2015, I also suggested that Mind may be irreducibly triadic, and Mind may be a prerequisite for Step g above. If you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms, let me know. All the best. Sung -- Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net - 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 .
