Re: [PEIRCE-L] Superiority of triads

James, list, Ben Udell briefly discusses this matter in a *Wikipedia* article on the Categories. He writes: Part of the justification for Peirce's claim that three categories are both necessary and sufficient appears to arise from mathematical ideas about the reducibility

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" from AI perspective

Steven, List : > On Feb 10, 2017, at 8:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > Which makes it more imperative than ever that a way be found to make the > triadic mode more understandable and to say why it is infinitely superior to > binary thinking. Without it we perish. This

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

List, I think that I mostly think in diagrams and pictures, even when I think about words. I think that at this point, there is helpful Peirces three modes of consciousness: Primisense, Altersense and Medisense. They are connected with the three categories, and with the three object relations as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

On Feb 16, 2017, at 6:17 AM, John Collier wrote:One of the hardest things for me in learning analytic philosophy (after original training and work in physics) was to think in words.Yes, the undue focus on the language turn in analytic philosophy has not necessarily been

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

John: In "Quest for the Essence of Language" Roman Jakobson borrowed Peirce's statements about diagrams as relational icons. Jakobson conceived them as constitutive for all levels of language (phonemes, morphemes, syntax, rhetorical figures as well as its disposition and composition:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

I fully agree. I think mostly in diagrams and feeling - certainly not in words. The words, if they can do it, come after and quite frankly, don't really fully express those diagrams/feelings. Words are, I think, 'post-diagram/feeling'. They are symbols, and symbols have to be learned, while

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

From talking with colleagues, some say they think only in words and others, like me, say they think mostly in diagrams or in physical feelings that I attach no words to (and probably couldn’t in many cases). Although I am surprised when I find someone who believes they think in words only, I