Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

[Helmut Raulien]

Jerry, List,

 

Maybe in the analogy with chemistry and physics one might say: Chemical composition is one thing, and classification into solids, liquids and gases another. Something is either a gas, a liquid, or a solid, and you cannot tell which one, by just looking at the chemical composition.

That is, because additional information is needed: Temperature and pressure.


To tell whether something is a legisign, it also is not enough to look at the composition. You also need additional information, eg. whether the aligned letters or words make sense.
 

Best,

Helmut


 04. August 2017 um 17:15 Uhr
 "Jerry LR Chandler" 
wrote:


Helmut, Kirsti, List:


On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
 

But composition is just a matter different from classification. Therefore a sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no matter what a sini- or a legisign is composed of.


 



On Aug 3, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:



So then, what is it to be whole for all who investigate?

 




On Aug 4, 2017, at 1:39 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
 

Concernig the supplement:

Not just continental hybris, to my mind. I agree with Apel on this "something higher". Kirsti

 

 

My comment is again a polar opposite to Kirsti’s.

 

CSP was seeking “something deeper” in his sense of meaning.

 

In his lifetime, the logic of chemistry was utterly mysterious. It was mysterious because of 

"


a sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no matter what a sini- or a legisign is composed of.


That is, the chemical sign relations fails to preserve the predicates of the sinsigns, that is, the quali-signs, that is the physical properties of matter, under the compositions of the legi-signs. 

 

The simple example of this abstract logic is the composition of water from hydrogen and oxygen. 

 

The intrinsic electrical nature of the chemical sciences is necessary to compose a quantitative logic for rationalizing the formation of water from hydrogen and oxygen. This physical logic depends on scientific theories that were created only after CSP past away.

 

Thus, the three classifications of signs that were developed by CSP:

 

quali-sign, sin-sign and legi-sign

 

do not distinguish between the separate and distinct logics of the sentences  of symbols of alphabets (propositions), mathematics (equations) and chemistry (reactions).

 

To make 21 st Century pragmatic sense out of the “quali-sign, sin-sign and legi-sign” relationships, one must look at deeper forms of multiple  "universal logics” in the sense of Tarski’s meta-languages.

 

It seems to me that a consistent philosophical reading of CSP depends on the linguistic competencies of the reader. CSP mastered several pre-meta-languages and several symbol systems and modern readers are faced with the challenging task of grasping which of several possible meta-languages he was expressing his beliefs within the temporal history of his lifespan.

 

Further, it seems to me that several Procrustean beds are ready used by philosophers to avoid the difficulties of grasping the composition of CSP’s natural logical classes and categories.

 

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 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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] just test

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Chromatic scales of Tarski’s meta-languages:

a,b,c,...
1,2,3,…
H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F, Ne,…

The symbolic (predicate?) logic of each symbol system is different.

:-)

JLRC




> On Aug 4, 2017, at 1:31 PM, Armando -  wrote:
> 
> 123 abc
> 
> -
> 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 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] just test

[Armando Sercovich]

123 abc

-
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 .

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

[Helmut Raulien]

Kirsti,

you wrote: "Also, with triads, thinking in "parts" does not do. According to my
view, that is. Nor do the idea of "containing"."

 

Instead you wrote about: " Categorical aspects (or perspectives). "

 

But, isn´t this a kind of containing or composition? Like if you add all aspects or perspectives, you have the whole picture?

 

Best,

Helmut

 

 04. August 2017 um 08:34 Uhr
 kirst...@saunalahti.fi
 

Helmut,

You wrote: "...eg. what would be the difference between "qualisign" and
"icon". First, they are ripped off from different trichotomies (of which
one is left out, by the way). Second, these present something arrived at
from differing Categorical aspetcs (or perspectives). Without working
out oneself what is involved in all this, it is bound to hard or even
impossible to grasp what you seem to be after.

Also, with triads, thinking in "parts" does not do. According to my
view, that is. Nor do the idea of "containing".

I have never found sign classifications of much use, even though I spent
a lot of time once, long ago, with reading CSP's own writings on those
issues.

Existential graphs is the only part of his logic, that I have found CSP
to write down that he had succeeded in developing. But still holding the
firm view, that it presented only a part of Logic. Only one of the three
logically necessary approaches.

I have only worked out the introductory sections CSP has written on
this. This work has been immensely useful. In 1980' and early 1990's I
tried to find companions to form a study circe, with no success.

Best, Kirsti

Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 3.8.2017 22:54:
> Kirsti, List,
> For me both (classification and triads) was and still is complex and
> hard to understand. Before I have had a more or less proper
> understanding of the sign triad, I did not understand sign classes,
> eg. what would be the difference between "qualisign" and "icon".
> Another puzzling thing is, that a triad is a composition of categorial
> parts, so an "AND"-matter. Classification means "either or" or "NAND",
> but a legisign contains sinisigns and qualisigns. This is "AND", so
> where is the "NAND"? The answer is, I think, that a legisign is
> composed of sinisigns, which are composed of qualisigns. But
> composition is just a matter different from classification. Therefore
> a sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no
> matter what a sini- or a legisign is composed of.
> So it was incorrect of me to have written, that classification and
> triads are two different topics. Instead it would be more correct to
> say, that they are two different things, but to understand one of
> them, you must have had understood the other. Which, of course, is not
> possible (a paradoxon), so it is necessary to read about both topics
> (make them one topic) to understand both.
> So I agree with you having written: "Taking bits and pieces from CSP
> just does not work. The "pieces" only
> work in the context of his work as a whole."
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> 03. August 2017 um 10:08 Uhr
> kirst...@saunalahti.fi
> wrote:
> Triads belog to the system of Categories, the hardest part in Peircean
> philosphy to fully grasp. It is much easier to use only
> classifications.
> This appoach involves confining to Secondness, as if it were the
> only,
> or even the most important part in his philosphy. - Peirce definitely
> left this road.
>
> By this I do not mean that classifications are useless. Quite often
> they
> are useful as a stepping stone in the beginning of any serious
> research
> relying on Peircean Categories.
>
> It is true that in his later life CSP started call his work
> Pragmaticism, in opposition Pragmatism. But I do not agree in that
> the
> reason was anything like the latter being "too relativistic". The
> issue
> was much more complicated. Best to study CSP's later writings on the
> issues involved.
>
> To my mind Apel ended up with many misunderstandings and
> misinterpretations in his work on CSP. E.g. he relied too much on
> traditional Continental views of the hermeutic circle.
>
> Taking bits and pieces from CSP just does not work. The "pieces" only
> work in the context of his work as a whole.
>
> Best, Kirsti
>
> Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 3.8.2017 01:12:
> > List,
> > Are trichotomies and triads two different topics? I think so: One
> is
> > classification, the other composition. "Signs" as a term, I think,
> is
> > more connected with classification, and "meaning" with composition.
> Is
> > that so? It is my impression.
> > And: Is it so, that Peirce called himself a "Pragmaticist", in
> > opposition to "Pragmatism", which was too relativistic for him? So
> > Peirce has a connection ability towards metahysics and
> transcendental
> > philosophy, and maybe that is what Apel liked him for? Only my
> > impression too, maybe wrong, I have not read so much.
> > Best,
> > Helmut
> >
> > 01. August 2017 um 15:45 Uhr
> > kirst...@saunalahti.fi
> > wrote:
> > Clark understood pretty correctly w

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Helmut, Kirsti, List:
> On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
> 
> But composition is just a matter different from classification. Therefore a 
> sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no matter what a 
> sini- or a legisign is composed of.

> On Aug 3, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:
> So then, what is it to be whole for all who investigate?
> 
>  
On Aug 4, 2017, at 1:39 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:

Concernig the supplement:

Not just continental hybris, to my mind. I agree with Apel on this "something 
higher". Kirsti


My comment is again a polar opposite to Kirsti’s.

CSP was seeking “something deeper” in his sense of meaning.

In his lifetime, the logic of chemistry was utterly mysterious. It was 
mysterious because of 
"
> a sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no matter what 
> a sini- or a legisign is composed of.

That is, the chemical sign relations fails to preserve the predicates of the 
sinsigns, that is, the quali-signs, that is the physical properties of matter, 
under the compositions of the legi-signs. 

The simple example of this abstract logic is the composition of water from 
hydrogen and oxygen. 

The intrinsic electrical nature of the chemical sciences is necessary to 
compose a quantitative logic for rationalizing the formation of water from 
hydrogen and oxygen. This physical logic depends on scientific theories that 
were created only after CSP past away.

Thus, the three classifications of signs that were developed by CSP:

quali-sign, sin-sign and legi-sign

do not distinguish between the separate and distinct logics of the sentences  
of symbols of alphabets (propositions), mathematics (equations) and chemistry 
(reactions).

To make 21 st Century pragmatic sense out of the “quali-sign, sin-sign and 
legi-sign” relationships, one must look at deeper forms of multiple  "universal 
logics” in the sense of Tarski’s meta-languages.

It seems to me that a consistent philosophical reading of CSP depends on the 
linguistic competencies of the reader. CSP mastered several pre-meta-languages 
and several symbol systems and modern readers are faced with the challenging 
task of grasping which of several possible meta-languages he was expressing his 
beliefs within the temporal history of his lifespan.

Further, it seems to me that several Procrustean beds are ready used by 
philosophers to avoid the difficulties of grasping the composition of CSP’s 
natural logical classes and categories.

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 .

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Kirsti:

> On Aug 4, 2017, at 1:34 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
> 
> 
> I have never found sign classifications of much use, even though I spent a 
> lot of time once, long ago, with reading CSP's own writings on those issues.

In my view, the conceptualization of classes / categories lies at the essence 
of human communication and the formation of human communities, including 
professional disciplines such as logic, mathematics, chemistry, biology, and 
the medical professions. 

Thus, we are at polar opposites here.

The unity of body, mind and spirit can succeed if and only if...

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 .