Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

2014-11-01 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
List: (NB: This post contains many technical terms which are used within the rhetoric of chemistry but not acceptable to many philosophers.) On Nov 1, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote: > At root, what Peirce seems to see is that the underlying organization of the > periodic chart

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

2014-11-01 Thread Jeffrey Brian Downard
Gary F., Lists, I would add the following to what Gary F. says. The names for the three-fold divisions between rheme, dicisign, and argument, and between qualisign, sinsign and legisign are developed in the last decade of his career, but Peirce is explicitly working within a tradition in logic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Natural Propositions Chapter four

2014-11-01 Thread Gary Richmond
Gary F, Lists, I agree with you that the passage you quoted from MS 318 is instructive as involving the idea of an "inner world"--precursor of the *Innenwelt* of von Uexkull--in the definition of consciousness. Equally important, and perhaps especially for biosemiotics, where questions of conscio

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

2014-11-01 Thread Sungchul Ji
Edwina wrote: "A molecular formula, to me, as a set of letters/words, (1031014-1) has a purely symbolic relation to the actual chemical components.The chemical composition would be a legisign (a sinsign is "an actual existent thing or event which is a sign" 2.245) while a legisign "is a la

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

2014-11-01 Thread Edwina Taborsky
Gary F - yes, my reference to 'scattered all through his work' should really have meant 'scattered through the scattered CP collection - which, although not quite arbitrary, are not at all chronological and are more by theme and issueand thus, don't show the development of Peirce's analytic

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

2014-11-01 Thread Gary Fuhrman
Edwina, thanks for this very useful summary, and for citing your sources. One comment for the benefit of those just coming to grips with the three trichotomies: Peirce does discuss the icon/index/symbol trichotomy "all through his work"; but his writings about the other two and about the "ten cla

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

2014-11-01 Thread Edwina Taborsky
Jerry 1) The nine terms (eg, icon, index, symbol; qualisign, sinsign, legisign; rheme, dicent, argument) refer to the nine possible RELATIONS that the three 'nodes' of the semiosic triad have. Peirce discusses these all through his work. The Relations are defined by two factors: their categori

[PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:7324] Re: Natural Propositions Chapter four

2014-11-01 Thread Gary Fuhrman
Joseph, lists, There is no " violation of his own selection rule" in Peirce's definition of the Dicisign. Both the ten-sign triangle (EP2:296) and what Jerry calls the "triadic triad" are static, schematic diagrams intended to give a simplified representation of Peirce's analysis, which is given

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:7309] Natural Propositions chapter four

2014-11-01 Thread Sungchul Ji
Jerry, list, "The molecular formula is an (103114-1) index of the sinsign, is it not?" Yes. It is, but sinsign is not the only kinds of signs. As you know, there are in addition the qualisign and the legisign, and each is irreversibly triadic being associated with i