Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6624] Natural Propositions

> On Sep 3, 2014, at 2:47 PM, Frederik Stjernfelt wrote: > > Personally, I tend to side with the latter of the two schools, based on the > observation that the science of physics does not need semiotics in the > description of its subject matter (only in its theory of science) while > biology

[PEIRCE-L] Sign Relation

Peircers, The following article-in-progress sketches a view of sign relations as sets of ordered triples each having the form (object, sign, interpretant sign) and develops the examples of sign relations given in the article on triadic relations. http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Sign_re

[PEIRCE-L] Triadic Relation

Peircers, The following article introduces basic concepts relevant to triadic relations, giving simple, concrete, but non-trivial examples from mathematics and semiotics. http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Triadic_relation Regards, Jon -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonA

[PEIRCE-L] Relation Theory

Peircers, The following article provides an introduction to polyadic or k-adic relations, at least so far as the discrete case goes. http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Relation_theory Regards, Jon -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquir

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions

Re: Frederik Stjernfelt At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13888 Re: "it may be expressed as the claim that all true triadic relations are signs vs. the claim that signs only comprise a subset of triadic relations." Frederik & All, People may speculate until the

[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6630] Re: Natural Propositions

Thanks, Frederik. I agree that biology does need semiosis to understand what is going on because this realm is 'informationally explosive', filled with diversity, adaptations, interactions, all of which require networked informational processeswhile the physico-chemical realm is relatively

[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6624] Natural Propositions

Dear Gary, Edwina, list This is an recurrent discussion in P scholarship. It may be rephrased as pansemiotics versus biosemiotics, or it may be expressed as the claim that all true triadic relations are signs vs. the claim that signs only comprise a subset of triadic relations. Both tendencies

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions

Sound like when I resigned from my fraternity after it refused to consider a West Indian for membership, stimulating other resignations and a complex process which resulted in the end of the fraternity system at Williams College. *@stephencrose * On Wed, Sep 3,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Natural Propositions

Dear Jon, list Thanks for a great McCulloch quote. You are right that many of these issues have been discussed before, but this is no reason to be tired or resigned like you sound in your intro to that quote. It is a human condition that most important issues have been discussed before. This sh

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions

Re: Gary Fuhrman At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13880 Gary, That selection from W.S. McCulloch is one of several that I seem to find find myself citing on a periodic basis, most recently including it in a series of historical watershed statements that are widely

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Q. Why is there so much falsity in the world?

Re: Gary Richmond At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13861 Gary, A good place to track the state of public education in the United State, with occasional reflections on and from the global scene, is Diane Ravitch's blog. ☞ http://dianeravitch.net/ It is at times a

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions

(Undistorted Figure 1 is attached.) John, It seems to me that you are discussing the sign triad using terms that are not too familiar to me, which is not surprising. One advantage of the diagrammatic approach of Peirce, as I understand it, is that one can describe a given diagram in more than on

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions

Peircers, I am still reviewing the fray of yesterday, looking for bits of possible re-adjustment. Let me store here a list of "interactions", and I'll try to get back to it later today. Regards, Jon o~o~o~o~o~o~o Peirce List -- Natural Propositi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Natural Propositions

Gary F - you are incorrect in your description of my view. You wrote: "That excerpt is about the connection of syllogistic logic with primitive forms of *cognition*, but Edwina reads it pansemiotically as applying to physical "organization of matter" all the way down to the molecular (maybe the a

[PEIRCE-L] RE: Natural Propositions

Jon, Edwina, lists, Yes, I read McCullough a few decades ago and learned a lot from him, long before I started reading Peirce). But I think part of the problem here is that for Peirce, and I think for his contemporaries, "physiology" is closer to "phenomenology" than it is to "physics". It is the

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions

Gary, This "knee-jerk view" of logic and thought is one of many places where Peirce makes interesting suggestions worth pursuing but where the pursuit almost immediately runs into a host of problems. These issues have been discussed, here and elsewhere, many times before, and I cannot begin to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Natural Propositions

Exactly. The Sign, that 'irreducible triad' is a syllogism. The major premise is the Representamen relation; the minor premise is the Object relation; Conclusion is the Interpretant. This is a dynamic process, a transformative process and despite the criticism of some, I consider these three par

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions

Re: John Deely At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13872 John, My personal preference for that is "objectivity", using the word in a telescopic sense that refers to an "objective lens", the one that points toward the object (pragma). I wrote about that here: http:/

[PEIRCE-L] RE: Natural Propositions

Now that our seminar on NP is under way, I've been asked to post the "reading schedule" for it, so I'm attaching and inserting it at the bottom of this message, along with the list of threadleaders. It is subject to change if necessary, but should give list members time enough to read each chapter

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:6595] Re: Natural Propositions

John, you quibble with my perspective of the term of 'relation' as meaning an interaction - not between agential subjects - but between three sites-of-organization of a whole. And I quibble with your glossing over WHAT is going on in those relations. Something is going on, an actionamong th

[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6620] Re: Natural Propositions

I am excited that we decided to focus on Frederik's* Natural Propositions. *Reading the introduction to the book reminded me of a feeling of epiphany I once had when studying "Sundry Logical Conceptions" some time ago. I realized that the minimum constraint required for information is the combinati