[PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions

Re: Frederik Stjernfelt At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13901 Exactly. And this is one of those places where we have to watch out for the possibility of a backward step, where it is very tempting to fall back on the "Mirror Of Nature Theory Of Science" (MONTOS) an

[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6650] Re: Natural Propositions

Lists, I would like to add to what Gary F. has written that, given the high volume of posting the seminar on *Natural Propositions* is producing, it would be helpful if individuals would exercise a modicum of self-control in the number of messages they post each day. This is not to suggest a maxim

[PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6656] Re: Natural Propositions:

No - to say that 'brute secondness' is a property of physicochemical interactions is not a denial of semiosis for two reasons. The simplest and most irrelevant is that a semiosic sign, a triad, can be entirely in a mode of Secondness. The more basic reason is that IF 'brute secondness' were the o

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mind and Universe

> On Sep 5, 2014, at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Clark - I got the paperback of the book, Natural Propositions, from Amazon > for $16.19. Oh whoops. I’d been looking at Diagrammology. Ugh. My bad. Please ignore everything I said. I’m a complete idiot - perils of trying to fit Peirce

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mind and Universe

Peirce is Peirce and cannot be pegged to any philosopher though he seems to think in logic he and Leibnitz share commonality. As to outside and inside, whatever that is, Peirce even before he was a believer was willing to accept the possibility if a deity whose reality could (one day) be proved. In

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mind and Universe

> On Sep 5, 2014, at 10:29 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > No, Peirce was an Aristotelian not a Platonist or NeoPlatonist. The latter > proposes some power or force 'beyond or outside of being' - and Peirce > rejects this. And to define Peirce as a neo-Platonist because he read > Platonists su

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mind and Universe

> On Sep 5, 2014, at 10:19 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > Is there yet an online version of the book? I checked a while back and found > none but it makes sense to have texts available on Kindle as they can be read > on any device and online will be the permanence of texts in the future. There

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mind and Universe

No, Peirce was an Aristotelian not a Platonist or NeoPlatonist. The latter proposes some power or force 'beyond or outside of being' - and Peirce rejects this. And to define Peirce as a neo-Platonist because he read Platonists such as Plotinus - is a weak argument. Equally, to define him as such

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Mind and Universe

Is there yet an online version of the book? I checked a while back and found none but it makes sense to have texts available on Kindle as they can be read on any device and online will be the permanence of texts in the future. There are other positive arguments as well. *@stephencrose

[PEIRCE-L] Mind and Universe

Changing subject line as per John’s request - I have questions on Frederik's chapter but I had to wait until I had a copy of the introduction first. I love what I’ve read thus. Wish I could justify buying the whole book as Frederik’s work seems very much tied to my own interests in Peirce’s semi

[PEIRCE-L] Skiourosemiosis

| The resultant metaphysical problem now is this: | Does the man go round the squirrel or not? — William James, ''Pragmatism'' ☞http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_2.0#Differential_Analysis_of_Propositions_and_Transformations Speaking of hiking ...

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: consequential definitions

Jon, Solvitur ambulando. gary f. -Original Message- From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: 4-Sep-14 4:36 PM Re: Gary Fuhrman At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/13894 Gary, Classifications of the sciences have their utility in guiding inquiry, not

[PEIRCE-L] The Debates within Natural Propositions

There are a number of debates on this topic at the moment. 1) Does 'Mind' or reasoning extend into the physico-chemical realm - as well as the biological and socioconceptual realm? Those of us who consider that it does are labelled as 'pansemioticians' or even 'panpsychics'. Even the definition

RE: [biosemiotics:6635] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Natural Propositions

Dear Lists, I'm happy to see that John Deely altered the subject line of his post, but John, I wish you'd taken "Natural Propositions" out of it completely. And the same goes for all the subject lines of the blizzard of posts yesterday none of which made any reference to the actual content of C

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

At 10:35 PM 9/2/2014, Gary Richmond wrote: List,  Although I agree that creativity cannot be taught/learned, it can be and, in my opinion not infrequently, is stifled, thwarted, stunted. near smothered, derailed, and finally self-inhibited. It can also be fostered, nourished, and encouraged. A s

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:6624] Natural Propositions: "pansemiotics" (no) vs semiosis beyond life (possibly)

Dear sirs, This short note about the divergent opinions of two imminent authors on the Peirce list leaves me frustrated. I tried to go through the communications to find the conversation referred to and could not. I think it is important, here, for this area to be clearly spelled out even for ig