Ben wrote:
(100714-1)
Peirce did not complete the ten-trichotomy system to his own satisfaction
but his effort indicates that he regarded the copula basically as a Third,
not as a Second, although it works as a Second at the
Gary R, Lists,
This strikes me as a good summary of the argument in NP Chapter 3 so far.
Except possibly your penultimate paragraph, about the two objects; I'll have
to study that further. In that connection, one of the brightest revelations
for me in reading NP came on p. 68, where Frederik
Gary F., lists,
I didn't say that the discussion is not directly relevant to _Natural
Propositions_, I just don't know whether it is. Regarding EP, I usually
get by by Googling up EP pages, but last night I was just too tired.
From Nomenclature... in CP 2 and EP 2. Occasional font
STOI. Semiotic Theory Of Information
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14551
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14559
STOI-DIS. Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14561
Ben, that’s true, you didn't say that the discussion is not directly relevant
to Natural Propositions, but I’m saying now, based on my intensive reading of
the book which you don’t have, that its relevance is very indirect indeed.
In your quotes, Peirce does say that an icon denotes an
Edwina, Jon, lists,
If the idea expressed in [biosemiotics:7096] is, in principle, correct
that the new semiotics can be viewed as a mathematical category
comprising physics, biology and linguistics, among others, it may be
necessary for natural scientists to become semioticians and semioticians
(Sorry. I attached a wrong file).
Original Message
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
From:Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu
Date:Tue, October 7, 2014 11:30 am
To: Edwina Taborsky
As per Sung's request, here's the defining text on Dicisigns, from
EP2:275-83. The usual warnings about taking a text out of context apply here
too: the reader who hasn't read the whole of selection 20 in EP2, Sundry
Logical Conceptions, is unlikely to fully understand this; and the Dicisign
On Oct 6, 2014, at 5:45 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com wrote:
And, further, for Peirce these two are joined not, as they've traditionally
been, by a copula, but rather by an index of a peculiar kind, indeed of a
metaphysical kind, namely, an index pointing to the real fact
Sungchul, lists,
As regards the copula as index, I was referring back to Gary Richmond's
remarks on Peirce and Stjernfelt,
[Quote]
In 3.7 Frederik shows, in considering the syntax of the proposition,
that Peirce replaces the traditional copula with an index pointing to
the fact being
Hi Phyllis,
My daughter lives with chronic pain and fatigue as part of autonomic nervous
system dysfunction. The medical professionals who work with patients living
with different kinds of chronic pain get better at describing the
experiences--partly as a way of being able to communicate what
Jon - Nope, I disagree. You are reducing the nature of a Function to a
linear path. My point is that F or S (in your triad) is not a step in a path
nor is it a cumulative action but is instead a transformative action. The
semiosic 'f' is not empty but 'filled' - with generals, with universals
Clark, Ben, Gary F, lists,
Clark wrote:
With a dicisign because it is more expansive than mere language, a
traditional copula is insufficient. Thus a painting can be a dicisign but
clearly it doesn't have a copula in any normal syntactical sense. (There's
no to be of the painting) Yet there is a
STOI-DIS. Semiotic Theory Of Information -- Discussion
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14561
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14570
SJ:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14573
Jon,
I agree with you.
I think f(x) = y is dyadic, not triadic. It has THREE symbols, f, x and
y, but that does not mean that they constitute a TRIADIC relation.
Another way of saying the same would be that f(x) = y is not a
mathematical category, since it has only one arrow, whereas a
Edwina,
My apology, it is not my wish to be unkind.
I do not know what you mean by a semiosic triad of relations.
I have been talking about triadic relations as Peirce described them from his
earliest papers and focusing on the subclass of triadic relations that satisfy
his more complete
16 matches
Mail list logo
