Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Gary, list: That’s very interesting. I wonder, though, how many Peirceans even know what Prigogine means by pluralism in physical laws, never mind physicists. Best, Jerry R On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 8:57 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > Edwina wrote: And I recall a

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Edwina wrote: And I recall a Nobel Laureate in physics, in a conference, declaring that Peircean semiotics was a vital analytic framework for physics. This might very well have been Ilya Prigogine, the Belgian physical chemist who won the Nobel prize for his work in complex systems,

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Again, I am presuming that all of you know of the work being done in biosemiotics - so, frankly, using Peircean analysis in these areas - biology, physico-chemistry, AI, computers..isn't new! There are journals; there are books; there are conferences devoted to these issues. Google

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Dear Ben, list: I think yours is a wonderful idea. To think Peirce could impose himself in all disciplines. If we take the disciplines to be embedded in the three Universes, then it should be matter of course that it would. Isn’t that what ancestry of pragmatism means? A river of

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Ben - you probably know that Peircean concepts are vigorously explored in biology [biosemiotics], physics and chemistry [pansemiosis]...as well as in AI and computers. Peirce, in my view, is exactly right for these areas; after all, his own references to the biological and physico-chemical

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Dear List: I would like to come back into this discussion, but first let me thank Jon for his concise correction of my multitudinous errors. Second, let me thank you all for the liveliness of this discussion. But back to Jon, I ended my first post on this discussion with: "I am not sure I am

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Hello, list! What Edwina said is so sensible as to be Greek. There is a one over many in semiosis. That is, one has to cut and situate oneself in a horizon while discussing one two three…One. For example, there is also a fourth and a fifth that are assumed but don’t get talked about; a

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Helmut, list Your comments point to exactly the problem with mechanical reductionism, i.e., where one tries to reduce a dynamic process [the semiosic process] which is always triadic, into 'bit parts' that somehow mechanically interact. That's the opposite of the Peircean semiosis. That's why

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Helmut, List: Thank you for sharing these helpful reflections. As others have pointed out before, how we talk about the categories depends on what type of analysis we are performing. I am content to accept your correction of my third bullet. - All thought takes place by means of signs. -

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Jon, Gary, Edwina,..., list, I find it interesting, that Peirce later replaced "Quality, relation, representation" with "Quality, reaction, mediation". Might it be better to say "mediation is always thirdness" instead of "mediation is only thirdness"? "Only" I find confusing, because I think