Gary R., List:
GR: EGs might very well prove to be a powerful analytical tool succeeding
the "direct observation of phanerons" (which observation alone ought to be
called "phanersocopy" in my opinion). In CP 1.286, which you quoted, Peirce
goes on to describe the study of phenomenology beyond the
Jon, List,
JAS: I agree that some authors unfortunately "blur the important
distinction" between "the *formal *logic of relations/relatives as pure
mathematics and its *application *to terms and propositions within the
normative science of logic as semeiotic." To be honest, it is likely that I
hav
Helmut
I think we'll have to wait to see what Stan thinks of your
comparison of your outline with his hierarchy theory. Your outline,
where, if I read it correctly, is that composition=1ns,
definition=2ns, and classification=3ns. This can, by a stretched
analogy, have some compa
Correction: It is "binghamton" without a "p" (found it).
Thank you, Edwina! so I include Stan´s email. Hi Stan! How are you? Here is a thread about Peircean categories and phaneroscopy, and we would like to know your opinion, whether systems hierarchies may have something to do with the topic.
Thank you, Edwina! so I include Stan´s email. Hi Stan! How are you? Here is a thread about Peircean categories and phaneroscopy, and we would like to know your opinion, whether systems hierarchies may have something to do with the topic.
Best,
Helmut
19. Juli 2021 um 14:55 Uhr
"Edwina T
Helmut, list
I've known Stan Salthe for many years. His email, if I recall, is
ssal...@binghampton.edu [1]
He writes primarily in the biosemiotics field; strange that 'The
Powers' on this list consider that I am, to quote, 'long discredited
in the biosemiotics
Gary, Gary, List
There is a paper about systems Hierarchies by Stanley N. Salthe: "Salthe ´12 Axiomathes.pdf". I have it, but I don´t know, if it is ok. to pass it on here? That would be like publishing it without permission. I cannot find his Email-adress, maybe you have it, and can ask him?
Helmut, Gary F, List,
I do find this "systems hierarchies" approach intriguing although I know it
only superficially. I haven't studied it so that I can't yet see how it
directly relates to phaneroscopy, at least from your brief outline.
I vaguely recall some discussion of Salthe's work relating
Gary R., List:
I agree that some authors unfortunately "blur the important distinction"
between "the *formal *logic of relations/relatives as pure mathematics and
its *application *to terms and propositions within the normative science of
logic as semeiotic." To be honest, it is likely that I have
Gary, List
About the categories in phaneroscopy, and how they derive or not from logic and mathematics, I think that the systems hierarchies "composition" and "subsumption" (Stanley N. Salthe) can be used, with the third hierarchy "definition" that I am suggesting:
Composition (1ns) is not
Jon, List
Jon wrote:
[I]t appears that Atkins is right not to see much difference between "the
-adicity of relative terms themselves" and "propositional forms."
Nevertheless, *both terms and propositions are obviously **signs*, and I
believe that *it is important to maintain the distinction betwe
Correction, the two quotes that I cite below as being from R 481:5 are
actually from R 418:5.
On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 9:42 PM Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> Gary R., List:
>
> GR: Is it in that "next chapter" that Peirce takes up the logic of
> relations?
>
>
> This seems to have been the plan that h
Gary R., List:
GR: Is it in that "next chapter" that Peirce takes up the logic of
relations?
This seems to have been the plan that he had in mind when he was writing
"The Simplest Mathematics" as chapter 3 of *Minute Logic* (R 429, CP
4.227-323, 1902).
CSP: In this chapter, I propose to conside
Gary F, Jon S, List,
[Note: I had nearly completed this message when I read JAS's post which
included his correction of the "procedural order" reversing numbers 1 and 2
just below.]
GF: The procedural order here is:
1. settling “what the phaneron is”
2. “considering what is possible” [
] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 17
Gary F., List:
GF: This leaves open the question of how to classify the science--if it is a
science--which enables us to “settle” what the phaneron is.
Perhaps we can find the answer to that question by consulting what Peirce wrote
right before
Gary F., List:
GF: This leaves open the question of how to classify the science--if it *is
*a science--which enables us to “settle” *what the phaneron is*.
Perhaps we can find the answer to that question by consulting what Peirce
wrote right before claiming to have just "settled what the phanero
André De Tienne: a science that happens to make use of a principle
formulated in a more abstract science
may provide that prior science with
corrective feedback, reasons to revise generalizations, and reasons to
redesign formal possibilities. Thus, a science may also be said to precede
another s
17 matches
Mail list logo
