Re: [PEIRCE-L] Essay about categories and logical presuppositions
Robert, It is so good to see the publication of this new research activity of yours. I look forward to reading your *Semiotica* paper very soon. Best, Gary "Time is not a renewable resource." gnox *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 6:39 PM robert marty wrote: > Dear colleagues hello, > > I submit for your review this preprint which is awaiting publication : > > https://academia.edu/resource/work/41574474 > > Here is his abstract : > > "This article organizes Peirce's universal categories and their > degenerate forms from their presupposition relationships. These > relationships are formally clarified on the basis of Frege's definition of > presupposition. They are visualized in a "podium" diagram. With these > forms, we then follow step by step the well-known and very often cited > third Peirce Lowell Conference of 1903 (third draft) in which he sets out > his entire method of analysis based on these categories. The very strong > congruence that is established between the podium and the text validates > the importance, even the necessity, of taking into account these > presuppositions in order to correctly understand > Peirce's phenomenology" > > I would be very happy to read your comments. > > Best regards > > Robert Marty > - 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] Essay about categories and logical presuppositions
Dear colleagues hello, I submit for your review this preprint which is awaiting publication : https://academia.edu/resource/work/41574474 Here is his abstract : "This article organizes Peirce's universal categories and their degenerate forms from their presupposition relationships. These relationships are formally clarified on the basis of Frege's definition of presupposition. They are visualized in a "podium" diagram. With these forms, we then follow step by step the well-known and very often cited third Peirce Lowell Conference of 1903 (third draft) in which he sets out his entire method of analysis based on these categories. The very strong congruence that is established between the podium and the text validates the importance, even the necessity, of taking into account these presuppositions in order to correctly understand Peirce's phenomenology" I would be very happy to read your comments. Best regards Robert Marty - 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: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Brief report on the pandemic from a Peircean triadic perspective by Fernando Zalamea
Auke - thanks for your comments. 1] Yes, I now see your point, with 'one monad interacting with another monad' - and I agree. 2] With regard to your rejection that the categories operate as linear modes - I accept your explanation. 3] And I fully agree with you on the rejection of ideological goals in a discussion and analysis! Edwina On Fri 10/04/20 4:47 AM , Auke van Breemen a.bree...@chello.nl sent: Edwina, You wrote: In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads [Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with other full triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both genuine and degenerate [1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. -- Also in my view, but I keep insisting that it is possible to look at this complexus as a monad entering an interaction with another monad, the complexus being involved. For instance when describing an interaction and its ensuing proces of interpretation we just start with identifying the actors. I don't think we disagree on this point. what is involved will evolve in the process of analizis. Which in order to be relatively complete must deal with two processes: 1. 'a,b-result' and 2. 'b,a -result'. You wrote: 3] You say that a citizen or government can be considered a monad [Firstness] .which then interacts [Secondness]..etc. I disagree with this, for it seems to be using the categories within a linear order, ie, setting them up as ordinals where First=Firstness, and Second=Secondness and Third=Thirdness. I disagree with such an analysis. -- I can't easily respond to this for the risk of suffering from a lack of understanding the meaning. Do you state that you disagree with me raising that impression of linearity, knowing that I don't commit that fault or are you politely stating that I take matters linear? If the latter, I disagree. In KiF the input output relation stands as a line perpendicular on the diamond, in the center at the index position, signifying the cotagation of all involved triadic relations. The plane is for analytical purposes. It is structured according to the categorical dependency relations, but has to be filled in with the telos of the proces of investigation in mind and explicated in the procress description. You wrote: Although, I note that Peirce's cosmology puts Firstness as First] And then...we begin to disagree. -- For me the primacy issue is a matter of different ways of looking at matters. Akin to Aristotles remark on first in the order of being as contrasted to the order of knowledge. Or Stampers distinction between a radical subjectivist and an actualist perspective on matters. As long as no ideological goals are served by the discussion, I am fine with either approach. Auke Op 9 april 2020 om 14:46 schreef Edwina Taborsky : Auke - Thanks for your comments...I'll continue with my own comments 1] I don't say that my view is not suited/or is suited to political issues. I was only discussing the categorical mode of Thirdness, and since Thirdness is an action providing rule-based continuity- then, of course, it functions within the political or societal realm of life. Thirdness of course, not does function alone [see 5.436]. None of the categories, really, function alone. 2] I agree therefore that the Sign, as a triad, is the point of departure - not the nature of Thirdness. [Nor, indeed, are any of the categories the 'point of departure'. Although, I note that Peirce's cosmology puts Firstness as First] And then...we begin to disagree. 3] You say that a citizen or government can be considered a monad [Firstness] .which then interacts [Secondness]..etc. I disagree with this, for it seems to be using the categories within a linear order, ie, setting them up as ordinals where First=Firstness, and Second=Secondness and Third=Thirdness. I disagree with such an analysis. In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads [Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with other full triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both genuine and degenerate [1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. So, if we use as an example, a government or society as a full triadic Sign, then, it could be reacting to the action of another government or agency [its Object] within a mode of Secondness [eg, 9-11]; where the govt, first reacts to the impact of 2ns, and the Immediate Interpretant is in a mode of 1ns; the next is 2ns - and then, using its knowledge base within the Representamen, the Final Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. But these are not linear; they are 'experiences' so to speak and more complex. Edwina On Thu 09/04/20 4:28 AM , Auke van Breemen a.bree...@chello.nl sent: Edwina, Thanks for the clarification. It
Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Brief report on the pandemic from a Peircean triadic perspective by Fernando Zalamea
Edwina, You wrote: In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads [Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with other full triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both genuine and degenerate [1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. -- Also in my view, but I keep insisting that it is possible to look at this complexus as a monad entering an interaction with another monad, the complexus being involved. For instance when describing an interaction and its ensuing proces of interpretation we just start with identifying the actors. I don't think we disagree on this point. what is involved will evolve in the process of analizis. Which in order to be relatively complete must deal with two processes: 1. 'a,b-result' and 2. 'b,a -result'. You wrote: 3] You say that a citizen or government can be considered a monad [Firstness] .which then interacts [Secondness]..etc. I disagree with this, for it seems to be using the categories within a linear order, ie, setting them up as ordinals where First=Firstness, and Second=Secondness and Third=Thirdness. I disagree with such an analysis. -- I can't easily respond to this for the risk of suffering from a lack of understanding the meaning. Do you state that you disagree with me raising that impression of linearity, knowing that I don't commit that fault or are you politely stating that I take matters linear? If the latter, I disagree. In KiF the input output relation stands as a line perpendicular on the diamond, in the center at the index position, signifying the cotagation of all involved triadic relations. The plane is for analytical purposes. It is structured according to the categorical dependency relations, but has to be filled in with the telos of the proces of investigation in mind and explicated in the procress description. You wrote: Although, I note that Peirce's cosmology puts Firstness as First] And then...we begin to disagree. -- For me the primacy issue is a matter of different ways of looking at matters. Akin to Aristotles remark on first in the order of being as contrasted to the order of knowledge. Or Stampers distinction between a radical subjectivist and an actualist perspective on matters. As long as no ideological goals are served by the discussion, I am fine with either approach. Auke Op 9 april 2020 om 14:46 schreef Edwina Taborsky : > > Auke - Thanks for your comments...I'll continue with my own comments > > 1] I don't say that my view is not suited/or is suited to political > issues. I was only discussing the categorical mode of Thirdness, and since > Thirdness is an action providing rule-based continuity- then, of course, it > functions within the political or societal realm of life. Thirdness of > course, not does function alone [see 5.436]. None of the categories, really, > function alone. > > 2] I agree therefore that the Sign, as a triad, is the point of departure > - not the nature of Thirdness. [Nor, indeed, are any of the categories the > 'point of departure'. Although, I note that Peirce's cosmology puts Firstness > as First] And then...we begin to disagree. > > 3] You say that a citizen or government can be considered a monad > [Firstness] .which then interacts [Secondness]..etc. I disagree with this, > for it seems to be using the categories within a linear order, ie, setting > them up as ordinals where First=Firstness, and Second=Secondness and > Third=Thirdness. I disagree with such an analysis. > > In my view, the citizen or government are Signs, full triads > [Object-Representamen-Interpretant]. As such, they can interact with other > full triad Signs using any of the six categorical modes, both genuine and > degenerate [1-1, 2-2, 2-1, 3-3, 3-2, 3-1]. > > So, if we use as an example, a government or society as a full triadic > Sign, then, it could be reacting to the action of another government or > agency [its Object] within a mode of Secondness [eg, 9-11]; where the govt, > first reacts to the impact of 2ns, and the Immediate Interpretant is in a > mode of 1ns; the next is 2ns - and then, using its knowledge base within the > Representamen, the Final Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. But these are not > linear; they are 'experiences' so to speak and more complex. > > Edwina > > > > > > > On Thu 09/04/20 4:28 AM , Auke van Breemen a.bree...@chello.nl sent: > > > > > > Edwina, > > > > Thanks for the clarification. It seems to point to the difference > > in our respective approaches, and I agree that yours is not ideally suited > > to adress political issues. For completeness sake: for me, a sign that > > fulfills its sign-function in raising interpretant signs (responses) is the > > point of departure, not the nature of thirdness and its degenerate modes. > > So, for me a citizen or government can be looked at as two monads A,B > >
