Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

Jon S, Jeff D, List, Jon wrote: "There seems to be some evidence that Peirce may have stopped talking about Categories in favor of Universes late in his life; I want to know whether that is really the case, and if so, what significance we should attribute to this." Jon, you earlier mentioned one

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

Jeff, List: JD: I don't detect any impatience ... Thanks for understanding. I need to take some time to digest your two posts from this evening, but I want to respond to one item right away. JD: I was under the impression that you are interested in questions about the universes and categori

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Søren, List: SB: I can see that Peirce has a kind of Zero field from which both matter and mind arises as sort of continuum – difficult to imagine – or inside and outside, which I find easier to comprehend and fits with his development of Aristotle’s hylomorphism, meaning that all matter is alive

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

Hi Jon, List, Let me try to take up the question you posed at the end of your message: "how does this help me figure out Universes vs. Categories?" Well, I was under the impression that you are interested in questions about the universes and categories because you want to dig deeper into Pei

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Soren, List: Rhetoric questions - you may decline to answer if you care not to devote the time. I re-iterate. No need to answer these questions, I only seek to raise the level of discussion out of the mundane and return to the pragmatism of real science. What is the role of efficient causality

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

Jeff, list: Here is an even more compact argument that we should admire: By a “Sign” is meant any Ens which is determined by a single Object or set of Objects called its Originals, all other than the Sign itself, and in its turn is capable of determining in a Mind something called its Interpretan

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon Yes it is both efficient and final causation and how they are related. I do know Peirce has several papers on that. But still how does it relate to the world as we know it today? Or rather how can we make a postmodern transdisciplinary framework that allows us to combine them?

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear Jerry and list Yes, how we through Peirce’s theory can reconcile the scientific knowledge we have gathered about material and mental causality. Look forward to read your paper when it is ready. Søren From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com] Sent: 21. okt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

Hi Jon, List, I don't detect any impatience, which is good because it will take some patience on our part to dig deeper into the puzzles that stem from Peirce's remarkably compact arguments in "The Neglected Argument." Let me start by focusing on the first points you make about the meaning of

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon Yes, I kind of get that, but the transitions from signs to matter is still somewhat vague for me. I can see that Peirce has a kind of Zero field from which both matter and mind arises as sort of continuum – difficult to imagine – or inside and outside, which I find easier to comprehend and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Cause-maulogy

On 10/21/2016 4:16 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: Thanks for summarizing the issue so clearly. This has traditionally been one of the most difficult points to get across both on this List and within the wider spheres of Peirce readership. Thanks for the note of support. For some related issues, see th

[PEIRCE-L] FW: Invitation to New York Pragmatist Forum (Friday, 10/28/16): Green & Woods on "Philosophy of the City"

Hello, all, In addition to everything else – Dewey, James, Peirce, Santayana, Royce, Mead – Judith and David are city planners with a special affection for democratic participation in planning. Regards, John From: John Brennan [mailto:jbrenna...@fordham.edu] Sent: Friday, O

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Oct 21, 2016, at 1:30 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > That is true of all the sciences, especially physics. When I used > the word 'modern', I meant the informal use by Hume. But as early > as the 17th century, physicists discovered that the differential > equations by Newton and Leibniz (loca

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

Jeff, List: JD: In saying the God created these universes of experience, is he using the transitive or the intransitive sense, and if it is the former, then which does he seem to have in mind? Is there a good reason not to take him as straightforwardly using his first (transitive) definition, e

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

> On Oct 20, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Now we have "Modes of Being" or "modes of reality" that are identified as > "three Universes" and correspond to "Actuality, Possibility, Destiny (or > Freedom from Destiny)." We also have "Realms for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

Hi Jon, Gary R, List, You asked, "Where does this leave us?" I believe it leaves us with three related areas of inquiry--mathematical logic, phenomenology and semiotics--that we can draw on for the sake of gaining better insight in the questions you've been asking about universes, realms and

[PEIRCE-L] Cause-maulogy

John, Thanks for summarizing the issue so clearly. This has traditionally been one of the most difficult points to get across both on this List and within the wider spheres of Peirce readership. I can remember quoting Peirce, Heisenberg, and a couple of yours on cause as long as 16 or 17 years a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Oct 21, 2016, at 11:55 AM, John F Sowa > wrote: > > But the modern word has become specialized to the single sense of efficient > cause. I’d add that we have to distinguish the idea of efficient causation as determinate from what came to be seen through a more pr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

On 10/21/2016 2:05 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: The role of efficient causality is extremely perplex in life and in the chemical sciences. That is true of all the sciences, especially physics. When I used the word 'modern', I meant the informal use by Hume. But as early as the 17th century, p

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Oct 21, 2016, at 1:55 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > But the modern word > has become specialized to the single sense of efficient cause. Only among a small minority of philosophers of science who attempt to establish the hegemony of the science of physics, this is probably true. But, medici

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

On 10/21/2016 1:09 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: By "scientific causality," do you mean /efficient/ causality (i.e., brute reactions), /final/ causality (i.e., laws of nature), both, or something else altogether? Scientific causality is not so constrained as your question suggests. In discussi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

List, Jon: > On Oct 21, 2016, at 11:58 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Jerry C., List: > > JC: Would it be fair to say that you seek to understand how CSP’s writings > relate to scientific causality? > > By "scientific causality," do you mean efficient causality (i.e., brute > reactions)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Oct 20, 2016, at 10:23 AM, Søren Brier wrote: > > I can find no easy way from phenomenology alone - not even from Peirce’s > triadic phaneroscophy - to the reality of an outer world and other embodied > conscious subjects. I do not think Peirce solves this problem. Do you? When you say t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jerry C., List: JC: Would it be fair to say that you seek to understand how CSP’s writings relate to scientific causality? By "scientific causality," do you mean *efficient* causality (i.e., brute reactions), *final* causality (i.e., laws of nature), both, or something else altogether? JC: I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Soren: Would it be fair to say that you seek to understand how CSP’s writings relate to scientific causality? I think it is fair to ask if Jon’s views on engineering wrt CSP writings are typical of modern engineering disciplines, such as chemical engineering and molecular-biological engineerin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Søren, List: I am still not sure exactly what you are asking, or what climate change has to do with it. Peirce's cosmogony/cosmology conceives the second Universe of Brute Actuality (including physical matter) as a discontinuity that came into Being on the underlying continuum of potentiality--a

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Sorry my last mail was an answer to Jerry not Jeff Søren From: Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] Sent: 21. oktober 2016 01:17 To: Søren Brier Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt; Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology) Soren, list: I don’t

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jeff. List My problem – probably arising from my scientific background as a biologist – is that I still do not see how Peirce explains in cosmogonical terms how we get from Peirce semiotic objective idealism with the universe as a grand argument to a physical as well as chemical theory of matt