Edwina,
I agree with you both that (a) it goes without saying that members of the
biosemiotics list should feel free to discuss whatever they wish to and (b)
that it would have been helpful to have changed the Subject line from one
pointing to the NP seminar.
I sent my post to the Peirce forum be
Gary R - I can understand, since you are (to my knowledge) one of the
moderators of the Peirce-L list, that you can decide that the discussion some
of us have been having only on the biosemiotics list should not be extended to
the Peirce-L list. But I don't think that you can decide what the bio
List,
Sung was responding in the context of about 10 messages in the biosemiotics
list where, by the way, I think this discussion should remain (that is, not
on peirce-l). I won't copy all those messages, but the last one before
Sung's was sent by me and reads:
*Howard, *
*Semiosis is a process
Howard, Edwina, Stan, Gary R, Gary F, Frederick, lists,
What I don't understand is why can't we extend "nominalism", whatever it
is, beyond the human mind to living cells, when Peirce himself extended
the concept of Mind to crystals and that of Propositions to non-linguistic
things ? Are we all
Howard - I think I begin to see your viewpoint but I think you have a very
personal definition of some terms.
You don't mean to say that 'nominalism existed before humans' - or do you?
Nominalism is, by definition, a perspective that exists only within human
cognition. It says that knowledge an
At 09:40 AM 10/20/2014, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Howard wrote: That is only a narrow human view of nominalism. I
think Peirce's view of Tychasm and Agapism is more radical. He
generalizes signs, interpreters, mind, habits, and love to the
entire natural world.
Edwina: What do tychasm and agapa
Thanks for your very succinct and clear outline of this chapter and its issues.
I agree that "the purely functional definition of propositions liberates
Dicisigns from the confinement to human language, intention, and
consciousness." (105). That's vital - semiosis proceeds without language or
Re:Tyler Bennet
At:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14779
Peircers,
The Peirce I have known for nigh unto the last 50 years is not much in evidence
on the Peirce List anymore, so I'll just limit myself to one general observation
that I've made before and then hope fin
Hello.
It is now time to begin discussion of chapter four of Natural
Propositions, "Some Consequences of the Dicisign Doctrine". I
come to the discussion as a student of applied semiotics in Tartu and my main
interest here is in contemporary debates about the application of Peirce for
empirical s
Howard - I think that some of these debates are due to confusion over
terminology.
1) Howard wrote:
"That is only a narrow human view of nominalism. I think Peirce's view of
Tychism and Agapism is more radical. He generalizes signs, interpreters, mind,
habits, and love to the entire natural w
Edwina, Gary F, Frederik, and list:
At 12:47 PM 10/19/2014, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
But both nominalism and psychologism are rooted in and indeed
confined to the human cognition and consciousness
and again, include 'thought, logic, semiotics and mind as
intrinsic'. But they deny these attributes
11 matches
Mail list logo
