Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - in Chemistry and Biology FYI

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:09 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > Or, an other way of putting the interesting question is can one have a > precept that is not perceptable. > Mathematics itself?:-) Cheers Jerry - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce on the Definition of Determination

> On Apr 20, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > First, an analysis of the essence of a sign, (stretching that word to its > widest limits, as anything which, being determined by an object, determines > an interpretation to determination, through

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - in Chemistry and Biology FYI

List, Clark: > On Apr 19, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > I raise this not necessarily to disagree but to just suggest that things are > more complex than they first appear - and perhaps in a fashion Peirce would > have agreed with. (I think Putnam’s paper on

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - in Chemistry and Biology FYI

List, Kirsti: Very interesting response, it is appended below. Yes, a crucial question is the relation, if any, between natural phenomenology and artificial phenomenology. This question appears to be a conundrum that is not solvable by either topology or category theory because of the nature

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - in Chemistry and Biology

the past to the present in seeking to understand just what the many many “logics” of today is all about.) www.jyb-logic.org/Universallogic13-bsl-sept.pdf >> > On Apr 8, 2016, at 1:27 PM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > Jerry, list, > My comments are inserted. > > Jer

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Readings On Determination : Discussion

Jon: I was surprised by your comment below. > On Apr 12, 2016, at 8:28 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > > PS. I have always found it useful to maintain a clear >separation between the source material I cite and >my own commentary and discussions, so I will make >some

[PEIRCE-L] Textual meaning and origin of CSP's tri-triadicity in pragmatic philosophy.

ogics under considerations.) Cheers Jerry Jerry LR Chandler, PhD. Research Professor Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study George Mason University - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this mes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - Contrasting the diagrams of ammonia and the handedness of carbon compounds.

distance is too great and involves sensibility and > respect for ongoing research. > > > Best, > > Jerry R > > > On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wro

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - Contrasting the diagrams of ammonia and the handedness of carbon compounds.

Jerry R., List: You wrote: >> Just a friendly public service announcement: >> >> >> If your interest is in genotype/phenotype mapping (i.e., relation between >> mutation and change in organism), talk of atoms, molecules and valences is >> considered bizarre. >> >> > On Apr 8, 2016, at

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - Contrasting the diagrams of ammonia and the handedness of carbon compounds.

ithetical to > what’s expected of a good hypothesis (a good relation between C and A in > abduction). They’re too far apart. Even talking of mutations in individual > genes and consequences on phenotype is problematic for many situations. > > > Best, > Jerry R > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - Contrasting the diagrams of ammonia and the handedness of carbon compounds.

List, Kirsti: > On Apr 7, 2016, at 3:15 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi > wrote: > > But let me first ask you some questions, to help me formulate my answer. > > 1) You concentrate on chemical symbols. - How about chemical reactions? JLRC: My interest for several

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - Contrasting the diagrams of ammonia and the handedness of carbon compounds.

es, on the other hand, appear to me definitely modern. > > In places, where you use the word "style", I would use "kind". Difference in > kinds has a different meaning than difference in styles, to my mind. But > apparently not to your mind? > > I was onl

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - Contrasting the diagrams of ammonia and the handedness of carbon compounds.

fortunately). >>> Best wishes, >>> Kirsti >>> John Collier kirjoitti 5.4.2016 07:41: >>> Thanks for the context, Jerry. I am not familiar with the passage, >>> but >>> it does seem, by your account, to be peculiar at best. I would agree >>>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems Of Interpretation

Jon, John: Thanks, Jon. The question I raised was in order to seek alternative interpretations of CSP’s diagram of a chemical structure, ammonia. (NH3) He showed it as a triad. The nitrogen atom was in the middle of the three hydrogens, each at the end of a spoke. NOT a triangle. But,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce on Knowledge Representation

Jon, List: > On Mar 23, 2016, at 4:15 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > > An Elementary Sign Relation > https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/awbrey-awbrey-1999-elementary-sign-relation.gif > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce on Knowledge Representation

Mike, List: Thanks for posting your views on your interpretation of CSP’s writings in relation to AI. While I agree with many (if not most of your comments,) I offer a comment on only one: The nature needed to be the sign because that is how information is conveyed, and the trichotomy parts

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

List: I fear that the distinction between connotation and denotation is being lost in this discussion. Cheers Jerry Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 17, 2016, at 2:12 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > > Thread:http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18467 >

[PEIRCE-L] Proceedings Publication: International Workshop on the History of Chemistry 2015 Tokyo (IWHC 2015 Tokyo)

Of Possible interest to some readers:Cheers Jerry Read more or reply Proceedings Publication: International Workshop on the History of Chemistry 2015 Tokyo (IWHC 2015 Tokyo)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

shouldn't have been all that surprised. Without > reference to "objects" — in the sense of "material things that can be seen > and touched" [New Oxford American Dictionary] — there can be no question of > truth or falsity. > > Tom > > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction : Analogy, Inquiry

John, Clark, List: > On Mar 9, 2016, at 1:59 AM, John Collier wrote: > > List, <> > > Another point that is often overlooked in discussions of inference to the > best explanation, which I agree is not the same as abduction, though I think > abduction is more

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

ion. - CSP was not immunune to that. > Still, to reave what he achieved, the focus has to remain in his later works, > after 1900. > It was not about signs, it was about meaning. > Kirsti > > Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 27.2.2016 23:12: >> List, Stephen: >>> On 2/2

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

List, Stephen: > > On 2/26/2016 5:38 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > I see abduction as guessing (and approved by CP), induction as having some > > evidence but less than deduction which is fallible but the best we can do > > to prove something. I have been cautioned against writing brief notes

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry

List, Stephen: > > On 2/26/2016 5:38 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > I see abduction as guessing (and approved by CP), induction as having some > > evidence but less than deduction which is fallible but the best we can do > > to prove something. I have been cautioned against writing brief notes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: How do Peirce's categories best fit the study of the arts?

; The material is tough and optically clear; not tough and opaque or clear and > brittle. It also is a natural material with the mark of perfection. We can > then talk about truth, perfection and morality in a systematic manner by > situating the knower in context of our current cultu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: How do Peirce's categories best fit the study of the arts?

t; > For example... I've never claimed EM Radiation. What is that and how would > that generate a phi spiral? > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:26 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > Jerry

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: How do Peirce's categories best fit the study of the arts?

> On Feb 15, 2016, at 6:26 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> > wrote: > > Jerry R, List: > > On more than one occasion you have mentioned, > >> phi spiral on mouse corneal epithelial cells > What is it about this particula

Re: [PEIRCE-L] How do Peirce's categories best fit the study of the arts?

Dear Adrian: Thanks for your stimulating post. A bit of synchronicity arrived with it, as I was just now inquiring into the logic of the names of things as representamen of forms. As an example from my favorite discipline, chemistry, although comparable logical situations exist in

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

e the same thing, because there is always us, the ones experiencing > the smoke, either as individuals or as a community, that are also always > involved in the experience. So the smoke remains part of the experience, not > the whole of it; while whether we consider the smoke as experi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

us, UKZN > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2015 13:10 > To: John Collier > Cc: Peirce-L; Clark Goble; Jeffrey Brian Downard > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations &

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

s generacy or degeneracy? A second question is similar. If a biological specie emerges as a consequence of loss of functionality, would you consider this generacy or degeneracy? Cheers Jerry > John Collier > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > From: Jerry LR Chandler

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations, - units of thought

List: As is becoming my habit, I will merely pose some questions directed toward furthering the inquiry. 1. How can one articulate the kinship of "degeneracy" and "percept"? (I have struggled with CSP's usage of the term "degeneracy" for over a decade; his meaning remains unsettled in my

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Clark, Jeffrey, List: Allow me to expand on the nature of my ignorance of the meaning of degeneracy. Clearly, CSP's usage of this term with respect to mathematical objects, that is conic sections, is crisp and meaningful within the Pythagorean-Cartesian perspective of relations. Jeff's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the meaning of unity. Co-extensivity of symbol systems

of symbols. Examples of this early system represents some of the earliest texts found in the Sumerian cities of Uruk and Jamdat Nasr around 3300 BCE, such as the one below. On Dec 14, 2015, at 11:02 PM, Matt Faunce wrote: > On 12/14/15 8:00 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> List, >&g

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the meaning of unity.

List, The argument given in Matt's email below is problematic. I will raise a question and make a brief and casual effort to place a Peircian interpretation on symbolic communication in terms of current scientific terminology. While human language is a very powerful source of human

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Jon A.S. : On Dec 8, 2015, at 2:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > In other words, a qualisign is always and only an icon; it can never be an > index or a symbol. Are you missing a critical presupposition here? What did CSP intend for these three trichotomies? Is each component of the three

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

List, John: 3.418. "Thus, the question whether a fact is to be regarded as to referring to a single thing or to more is a question of the form of the proposition under which it suits our purposes to state the fact." On Dec 6, 2015, at 6:26 AM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2015

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

List, John: On Dec 6, 2015, at 8:04 AM, John Collier wrote: > Peirce has a specific view of experience. Meaning has to be referenced to > something, and that something cannot be internal (mental in one sense), or > we go in circles (which is acceptable to some philosophers, but not to >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] by way of answering your questions

Michael, List: A further question on how to interpret... On Nov 28, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Michael Shapiro wrote: > The iconic motivation of this usage is twofold. First, less is shorter than > fewer, thereby fitting it more adequately than its counterpart to its > meaning, namely ‘lesser

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

understand your physical perspective, then I can easy understand why you answer in this way. Cheers Jerry > John Collier > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 02

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the unity.

List, Clark: On Dec 2, 2015, at 10:18 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > I’m not quite sure why you are applying firstness to structure where > structures are inherently relations and firstness is inherently a thing in > itself without relations. > >From my perspective, this argument, ignores the

[PEIRCE-L] Diagrams of terms, logical forms and geometry of representamen.

Gary R asked: I'd be interested in what forum members make of any of this, especially in relation to what has already been discussed, and especially in consideration of Gary F's two outlines of the 10 classes and the tree figure which he provided. The difference is profound with respect to the

Re: [biosemiotics:8987] [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Clark, list: On Nov 30, 2015, at 9:36 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote: > The key passage of Peirce is this one. > > If we are to proceed in a logical and scientific manner, we must, in order to > account for the whole universe, suppose an initial condition in which the > whole universe was

Re: [biosemiotics:8987] Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Gary: On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:02 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > And he quotes Peirce, from several sources, in support of this notion (I > should note, btw, that "glues" in the passage above is a technical term in > the mathematics which Zalamea espouses). I am curious as to why you consider this

Re: [PEIRCE-L] by way of answering your questions

Michael, List: On Nov 28, 2015, at 1:13 PM, Michael Shapiro wrote: > > "Attenuation of Arbitrariness in the Semantics of Quantification > > The overall drift in language development is toward greater > diagrammaticity (iconicity) between sound and meaning, which thereby >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] material relevant to Peircean linguistics

List, Michael: On Nov 28, 2015, at 11:59 AM, Michael Shapiro wrote: > What you call "verbal superstructure" EVOLVES IN TANDEM WITH "logical > infrastructure." > There is a set of patterned relationships between these two aspects of > linguistic structure that are diagrammatic, and the telos

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - "The union of units unites the unity."

List: I heartily disagree with Jon's interpretation of the CSP's writings with respect to the concept of a relation. Jon's basic hypothesis of the concept of expressing mathematics as "tuples" (a set of symbols? a set of numbers? a permutation group? a vector? discrete semantic objects?)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: signs, correlates, and triadic relations - "The union of units unify the unity"

List, Jon: On Nov 27, 2015, at 11:11 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > I used the phrase “relations proper” to emphasize that I was speaking > of relations in the strict sense of the word, not in any looser sense. The meaning of what you are seeking to communicate with this sentence is unclear. Does

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments --"The union of the units unites the unity"

List: The issue of the meaning of the term "representamen" is critical from a wider perspective. In the 1860's, CSP formed the triad: Thing - representation - form. (W1:257, see also W1:472-473) Thus, mental forms can be a consequence of the choice of representations of the antecedent

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rationalism : Philosophical and Scientific

Franklin, List: On Nov 25, 2015, at 4:08 AM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > I myself am interested in the idea of developing strategies for inducing > better abductions, but I haven't found Peirce so interested. For him, it > seems that an abductive inference is simply uncontrolled, and we can only

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

List, Clark: On Nov 24, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > Even a particular belief is always still a general. Is this a logical assertion? If so, what are premises? Is it a deductive argument? Is it an inductive argument? Is it an abductive argument? Or, could is be a conditional

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

List, Clark: On Nov 23, 2015, at 11:00 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote: > Also (and I think this is important) I think Peirce might say that the nature > of the habit is wrapped up in his pragmatic maxim. That is a habit’s meaning > consists not of an index to a particular context but of its

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The 'Petoukhov hypothesis': An experimetnal evidence

List: Further inquiry into the structure of proteins reveals that this table is incomplete with respect to the identities of amino acids in proteins. Several more amino-acids are now known to be parts of proteins (hydroxy-proline and hydroxy-lysine are two examples.) On a more general

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Clark: My recall may be wrong, but it is that CSP introduced the notion of "habits" in distinction to the notion of "regularity." In this context, I read the text as a simple recognition that the "regularity" (of geometry?, mathematics? and physical laws?) were not universal features of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8949] Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments

List: On Nov 19, 2015, at 1:46 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > Men many times fancy that > they act from reason when, in point of fact, the reasons they attribute > to themselves are nothing but excuses which unconscious instinct invents > to satisfy the teasing “why’s” of the ego. The extent of this >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments and "The union of units unites the unity."

List, Clark: On Nov 19, 2015, at 1:46 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > I think it’s probably better to think of Peirce here in terms of his > scholastic realism instead of in terms of the rationalists like Descartes or > Leibniz. I disagree. CSP's "fill in the blanks" sentences are a direct

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments (and "The union of units unites the unity.")

List, Jeff: Another fine post, Jeff, along with several other posts in this thread. I do not have time to prepare detailed responses but think I can add a bit here. I will focus on the phrase: > b) a principle of continuity that guides us in the formation of hypotheses > that will make the

[PEIRCE-L] CSP and the Hisory of Organic Chemistry

List: Fron time to time, I have noted that the chemical sciences of today are remote from the philosophy and logic of CSP. A recent book "Theoretical Organic Chemistry" edited by C. Parkanyi, opens with chapter, "Theoretical Organic Chemistry" : Looking Back in Wonder. Jan J.C. Mulder. This

Units of the Universe (was) Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Universe as a Self-Organizing Musical Instrument (USOMI)

ss, 1931, p. vii; emphases > were added).” is directly from CP1. paragraph 1 of the "preface" which is actually from a CSP paper. The deep question is: Can any concept meet this stringent criteria? If so, which one or ones? Would such a concept be a unit? JLRC > John

Re: Units of the Universe (was) Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Universe as a Self-Organizing Musical Instrument (USOMI)

t thinking > about it (very much) is a waste of time and effort. > > John Collier > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > Sent: November 14, 2015 8:00 PM > To: PEIRCE-L > Cc: Sungchul J

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Franklin: On Nov 14, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > I understand that the diagrams are an attempt to show how rhemes are > incorporated into dicents, and then how dicents are incorporated into > arguments, and thus to show that just as a rheme can be nested in a dicent by > the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Vol. 2 of Collected Papers, on Induction Role of Units of thought on inductive logic

ng aside the general confusion I feel from having read your post, >> it seems to me that you are all along trying to get at the issue of the >> meaning of terms. I don't understand at all why you felt the need to go to >> grammar, especially since you don't appear to mean speculativ

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Vol. 2 of Collected Papers, on Induction

List, Frank, Ben: This discussion has very deep roots into the foundations of CSP's thinking, at least in my opinion. Pragmatically, the situation of the logic of grammatical terms and it relationships to formal logics is an unresolved issue, at least from my perspective. CSP's writings open

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Vol. 2 of Collected Papers, on Induction

List: Does anyone have the citations for the two statements with respect to indices and mental acts as "forms" of inferences? I am curious about the textual origins in view of the following feelings. The first suggests a role for the connection between sin-sign and index as a consequence of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Peirce's categories - and chemical logic

Hi Kobus: From the perspective of chemistry, I find your question very simple. Thirdness as a noun requires the conjunction (binding, bringing together, union, classifier, relator) the priori existence of the both the first and the second. To CSP, thirdness is an object. See his papers on the

Re: Embodiment (Was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?)

the other > as a consequence of the communication. Your original question, “How is a > sign embodied in two different objects?”, does not make sense in that context. > > Gary f. > > } Wipe your glosses with what you know. [Finnegans Wake 304] { > http://gnusystems.ca/wp/

Re: Embodiment (Was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?)

CSP usage (as well as the dictionary's and mine) are consistent with usages such as "atoms are embodied in molecules" Or, propositional terms are embodied in propositional logic. Or, "DNA is embodied as a chemical fact of biological reproductions" Cheers Jerry On Oct 25, 2015,

Embodiment Was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Seeing Things : What Makes An Object?

List: On Oct 25, 2015, at 7:41 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > it is necessary that it should have been really embodied in a Subject > independently of the communication; and it is necessary that there should be > another subject in which the same form is embodied only in consequence of the >

Re: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality)

List, Ozzie, Clark: In regard to recent exchanges on open axiomatic frameworks, it is of critical importance to denote the distinctions between Newton's statements about the "hypothetical" and the nine terms of trichotomy. For a summary of Newton's views, See Ernan McMullin's :

Re: Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality)

Forwarded ( Clark sent this, but did not CC this list serve.) On Oct 21, 2015, at 1:52 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > >> On Oct 21, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> >> wrote: >> >> In regard to recent exchanges on open axiomatic

Open axiomatic frameworks (was: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality)

On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > such as the need for an axiomatic > framework, or a review of important principles. Interdisciplinary thinking > requires such openness to ideas, as none of us can be experts on everything. Yes, the need for openness in thinking broadly is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Second-Best Morality "Nothing is innate"

On Oct 14, 2015, at 2:57 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: > Conclusion? Nothing is innate. innate |iˈnāt| adjective inborn; natural: her innate capacity for organization. ORIGIN late Middle English: from Latin innatus, past participle of innasci, fromin- ‘into’ + nasci ‘be born.’ Cheers jerry

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Zalamea lecture series free in NYC in October

Gary: A bit envious am I. Wish I could have attended. I waded through a substantial portion of his book: Peirce’s Logic of Continuity: A Mathematical and Conceptual Approach (Docent, 2012) several months ago. Very innovative mind and mathematics. Definitely not in the mainstream and hence

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Practopoiesis: now I understand it better

Firstness, > Secondness and Thirdness are nouns ? > > All the best. > > Sung > > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> > wrote: > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Practopoiesis: now I understand it better

stness, Secondness and Thirdness are adjectives ? > > Sung > > > > > On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 7:17 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> > wrote: > Sung: > > > I meant what I wrote: > >> My conjecture is that CSP is intentionally invente

[PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Practopoiesis: now I understand it better

Begin forwarded message: > From: Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Practopoiesis: now I understand it better > Date: September 28, 2015 11:19:21 AM CDT > To: Danko Nikolic <danko.niko...@googlemail.com> > > D

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A metaphysical omission of the trichotomy: ens a se and ens ab alio

Jim, List On Aug 5, 2015, at 1:49 PM, Jim Willgoose wrote: Jerry. i diasagree. Can you articulate what it is that you disagree with? (It was a detailed reply!) I think the rhema represents the very possibility of connecting an object to the icon and acheiving a particular

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A metaphysical omission of the trichotomy: ens a se and ens ab alio

List, Jim: (At the bottom of this post are several relevant citations, all from the Commens dictionary.) Jim writes: However, the ens a se would not be metaphysically necessary! In regard to this assertion, my view of the concept of metaphysics is simple - it excludes the term necessary.

[PEIRCE-L] A metaphysical omission of the trichotomy: ens a se and ens ab alio

List: CSP proposed the trichotomy as a universal logic, such that the rhetorical terms can be used to generate an argument which is decidable - that is, is either true or false. The binding of the 8 rhetorical terms that serve to ground the propositions of the trichotomy to one-another is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] entia rationis, Suarez (1548-1617)

Gary: Thanks for the references. They lead to a number of useful sources on Suarez's unique metaphysical stances. More on this later as the order of conception of the terms and presentation of the trichotomy can be explored from the Suarez perspective. Cheers Jerry On Jul 31, 2015, at

Re: [PEIRCE-L] More Peirce MSS posted online by Harvard, incl [Reasoning and Instinct] - MS 831.. Difference between Logic and Reasoning

and the meaning of mathematics for the sciences of today. Cheers Jerry Best, Ben On 7/24/2015 4:17 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:Ben, List: Although we discussed aspects of this question before, fresh citations may shed a different hue on the meaning of the CSP's usage

Re: [PEIRCE-L] More Peirce MSS posted online by Harvard, incl [Reasoning and Instinct] - MS 831

, to have been made without indexical connection to the actual storm yet mirror the storm so well that indices merely need to be added to make the result able to represent the storm to an interpretant.) On 7/23/2015 11:38 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: Thanks again, Ben. (Where would

Re: [PEIRCE-L] More Peirce MSS posted online by Harvard, incl [Reasoning and Instinct] - MS 831

Ben: Thanks for your work in posting this work. A minor technical question: It is apparently the case that some pages contain only a few words. Is there any apparent reason for this? Is the date of the writing known to you? Cheers jerry On Jul 22, 2015, at 7:32 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] More Peirce MSS posted online by Harvard, incl [Reasoning and Instinct] - MS 831

how consistent he was about that in later years, but assembling the dates of later quotes on reasoning and inference might help suggest a more specific time period during which he wrote MS 831. Best, Ben On 7/23/2015 10:46 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: Ben: Thanks for your work

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion

List, John: The copula between instinct and behavior has been studied extensively by biologist. It is well known that extremely sensitive magnetic field sensors are constructed from genetic information. See the abstract below. See also the web address :

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct

Gary: On Jul 15, 2015, at 2:21 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: Why must the sides of the ledger balance? I've been mulling this over since I read it and haven't yet been able to come to an adequate answer to your question. At the moment I'm thinking it might have something to do with Peirce's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct ---- Infintestimals

List: An intervention concerning two recent posts and intertwined issues. On Jul 15, 2015, at 12:51 PM, Thomas wrote: Emotion propels a lot of activity other than logic. Usually they are considered as opposites. Their mutually reinforcing partnership when abduction occurs is the paradox

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic

Ben: I remain a bit puzzled by the nature of the work. Perhaps because of the fuzzy nature of CSP's abduction from an abstract point of view. This area of analysis is remote from my interests, but I would note that I travelled in East Germany in 1971 and lectured (in German) on my scientific

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic

Ben: Fascinating topic... will attempt to download thesis. from the post by Stephen Jarosek: “Unlike the other forms of logic, abduction is based on instinct and has a power over emotions.” Is this your statement? Is this your belief? In your view, what are the linguistic / rhetorical

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Survey of Relation Theory • 1

List, Jeff: Jeff's post addresses the fundamentals, not just of CSP's logic but also of his philosophy. It deserves a careful reading and long reflections on the preciseness of his expressions. It further deserves thoughtful mediations on the seeking the meanings that he may have intended.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8623] Re: Natural

List, Howard: On May 11, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Gary Fuhrman wrote: In W6:37, Peirce says that two subjects are “occult and mysterious.” One is “the power of nature that brings about the result of the chemical experiment” – or more generally, causality in the physical universe. This is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8567] Re: Natural

List, Frederik: On May 4, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Howard Pattee wrote: How do the Peircean signs and triads avoid facing the subject-object relation (which Peirce himself called obscure and mysterious)? Howard has posed an excellent and incisive question with far-ranging implications! Thanks.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8551] Re: Natural

in the perspective of (B)). Best, Ben On 5/1/2015 2:26 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: Ben, List: Biological measurements are expressed in terms of units in the sense of Kempe, as cited by CSP. They are referred to chemical measurements by reference to molecular biology. Chemical

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8538] Re: Natural

List, Gary F: Howard post is an extremely valuable one for those interested metaphysics, mathematics, logic, the sciences, philosophy, religion, theology and openness to inquiry. CSP's writings are, in there 19th century essence, chemo-centric. Howard is simply pointing out some of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:8551] Re: Natural

Ben, List: Biological measurements are expressed in terms of units in the sense of Kempe, as cited by CSP. They are referred to chemical measurements by reference to molecular biology. Chemical measurements are inferred by reference to physical measurements. CSP refers indirectly to these

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8468] Re: Natural Propositions,

). Perhaps we mean something different by “dynamical”. I use it in the physical, not the mathematical sense. John From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] Sent: April 27, 2015 10:58 AM To: Peirce-L Cc: John Collier Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8468] Re

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8468] Re: Natural Propositions,

John: On Apr 27, 2015, at 8:24 AM, John Collier wrote: I limit myself to dynamic structures. Why? Such an assertion indicates to me that your thinking is superficial. As I have noted before, it is attempting to work a cross-word puzzle by using only the across clues. Why does the puzzle

Correction Re: Secondness is that mode of being of that which is such as it is, with respect to a second but regardless of any third. was: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8465] Re: Natural Proposit

concept of Radicals and Handedness of molecules, which necessitated this extreme level of abstraction and circuitous rhetoric. see: 3.421 for an application. Cheers Jerry On Apr 27, 2015, at 12:44 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: Tommi: On Apr 27, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Tommi Vehkavaara

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8465] Re: Natural Propositions,

Frederik, List: From the perspective of the chemical sciences, I find your strong conclusions to be questionable. More specifically, consider CSP's letter to Lady Welby, p. 7, Oct. 12, 1904. and his clear distinction between Firstness and Secondness. Secondness is that mode of being of that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions

Jeff, Lists: Excellent post! To me, these distinctions reveal aspects of CSP's thought that are oft ignored and which probably arise from his training is chemistry as well as other disciplines. Before I comment, however, it is important to note that at first blush, I presumed that the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] What is information and how is it related to 'entropy' ?

Dear Professor Mani: Thank you for your well- formulated response. Of course, type theory and its many variations are critical to establishing correspondence between nature and mathematics. But it fails to satisfy the needs of chemists, biologists and physicians for a consistent approach to

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >