Edwina, List:
ET: ... with regard to the triadic sign, the hylomorphic monism of
matter-mind, and cosmology and the emergence of the universe. I’ve provided
enough supportive quotations previously to support my interpretations and
won’t repeat them.
My point is that there is no exact quotation
JAS, list
I continue to disagree with your interpretations of Peirce- with regard to the
triadic sign, the hylomorphic monism of matter-mind, and cosmology and the
emergence of the universe. I’ve provided enough supportive quotations
previously to support my interpretations and won’t repeat
Edwina, List:
As I have already explained twice before in this thread, no one can ever
be absolutely certain that a particular understanding of Peirce's writings (
*dynamical* interpretant) matches their final interpretant--the
*correct *reading,
how the texts *necessarily would be* understood
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
What does 'obvious discrepancies' mean??? The use of different
terms?
If someone is using the triadic sign, as, eg, Hoffmeyer did, in
analyzing what is going on within the 'habits of
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS
But how can YOU be sure that YOUR reading of Peirce is correct?
Never mind the Final Interpretant, which isn't the issue here. I'm
talking about the Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants - and how can
you be
Edwina, List:
It has nothing to do with whether Peirce ever used his own analytic
framework in a certain way. My basic question is, how do we ascertain
whether a particular analytic framework that someone is using to examine
the actual world is really *THE* Peircean analytic framework--i.e.,
Edwina, List:
As I already explained below, I can never be absolutely certain that my (or
anyone else's) understanding of Peirce's writings matches their *final
*interpretant,
but I can ascertain when someone else's expressed understanding of them is
inconsistent with their *immediate*
JAS, list
Your original reply focused, yet again, on The Text, and seemed to
insist on a focus only on text-to-text outlines, ie, where someone
'explains' to us what Peirce 'really meant' in his texts.
But I'd still appreciate your thoughts on my basic question -
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I'd disagree; you do claim to be defining The Peircean analytic
framework. Otherwise, how could you justify your comments criticizing
others? You don't apply it, admittedly, for you have openly said
apologize to
the list for that. Also for not saying anything substantive about the subject
line in this post.
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 17-Oct-21 19:48
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct, intuition and semiosis
Edwina
Edwina, List:
I am not the one claiming to be defining and applying "*THE* Peircean
analytic framework." As spelled out in his texts, there is much more to it
than "using the three categories in both their genuine and degenerate
modes" and/or "using the triadic semiosic process to show both
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
Then the question I ask is - what is the definition of THE Peircean
analytic framework?
That is, what if someone is examining the semiosic processes of a
wetlands or a meadow, and examining the
Edwina, List:
ET: I think it's a sidestep red herring to claim that Gary F did not
describe the *person *of Robert Marty as 'post-Peircean' but was referring
to Marty's thoughts and analysis.
Like I already said, I personally find such labels counterproductive and
try to avoid them since they
Gary F., Robert, List:
GF: I happen to think that Peirce’s philosophy, especially his
phenomenology and the semiotics which is quite explicitly based on it, is
highly relevant to the challenges of living in our time — relevant just as
it is, in the writings that Peirce left us. ... I think
Dear robert, list,
You said,
however, he (Gary F) is in a position of advantage over Peirce-L
What are you talking about?
The history of this list is detailed on the Arisbe site and
Gary R also gave his version as recently as the other day:
I am in the process of exploring the future
List,
Finally everything becomes clearer and I understand better why Gary F sees
me as a Post-Peircean ... it is because he is basically himself an
Ante-Peircean who reduces Peirce to an Idioscopy as it could exist before
him, without Cenoscopy and of course without Mathematics . ... as I simply
Jack, I appreciate your point that “we cannot have an epistemology without some
form of "anthropology".” If I may extend the idea a little, we cannot hope to
understand human nature, or why humans think and act the way we do, unless we
can draw on insights emerging from biology, anthropology,
of the 19th
century:
BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION AS SEMIOSIS
(072115-1)
All the best.
Sung
-- Forwarded message --
From: Sungchul Ji s...@rci.rutgers.edu
Date: Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
To: Stephen Jarosek sjaro
is not workable. sj
*From:* sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] *On
Behalf Of *Sungchul Ji
*Sent:* Monday, 20 July 2015 4:35 PM
*To:* PEIRCE-L
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen, Edwina, lists,
That is, if people are going to go along
to “language.” It’s
at the level of the DNA molecule that my thinking diverges.
From: Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au]
Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2015 11:13 PM
To: 'Sungchul Ji'
Cc: 'PEIRCE-L'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Sung, I understand where you are coming from
that are entangled with it by virtue
of the manner of DNA replication. sj
From: sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Sungchul Ji
Sent: Tuesday, 21 July 2015 7:05 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: PEIRCE-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen J, lists
at the level of the DNA molecule that my
thinking diverges.
*From:* Stephen Jarosek [mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au]
*Sent:* Tuesday, 21 July 2015 11:13 PM
*To:* 'Sungchul Ji'
*Cc:* 'PEIRCE-L'
*Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Sung, I understand where you are coming from... I
@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen - I'm not sure of the point of your post. Are you trying to say that
Peirce's view of the origin of life and its evolution/adaptation was pure
Darwinism? If so, this is incorrect. His analysis of The Origin
[mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au]
Sent: July 20, 2015 11:34 AM
To: 'Edwina Taborsky'; 'Thomas'; 'Stephen C. Rose'
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
List,
Many of us seem to be persisting with the narrative that instincts are
programmed
July 2015 2:56 AM
To: Thomas; Stephen C. Rose
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Tom - see my replies below:
- Original Message -
From: Thomas
To: Stephen C. Rose
Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 8:02 PM
*To:* Thomas; Stephen C. Rose
*Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Tom - see my replies below:
- Original Message -
*From:* Thomas ozzie...@gmail.com
*To:* Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
*Cc:* Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca ; peirce
;
biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen -
I believe Peirce argued that pragmatism is incorporated into genes during
evolution. If so, then instincts are purposeful/efficient without intervention
by others or instruction on how to be.
STEPHEN
: Stephen Jarosek
To: 'Edwina Taborsky' ; 'Thomas' ; 'Stephen C. Rose'
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu ; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 5:33 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
List,
Many of us seem to be persisting with the narrative that instincts
*From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
*Sent:* Monday, 20 July 2015 3:35 PM
*To:* Stephen Jarosek; 'Ozzie'
*Cc:* 'Stephen C. Rose'; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen- I continue with problems with your
the computers CPU? What technology is it all drawing on?
sj
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 4:18 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Ozzie'
Cc: 'Stephen C. Rose'; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
@list.iupui.edu ;
biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 9:05 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
TOM: “I believe Peirce argued that pragmatism is incorporated into genes
during evolution. If so, then instincts are purposeful/efficient without
intervention
'; 'Stephen C. Rose'
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen - as you note, I think we are reaching the stage where our
disagreements are beyond discussion.
1) Your response to how an organism knows how to 'define the things
; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 10:06 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Edwina, on most of the points you raise, I can see where we are going to be
going around in circles. So I’ll just respond to those couple of points where
we might stand a better chance
...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Sungchul Ji
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 4:35 PM
To: PEIRCE-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen, Edwina, lists,
That is, if people are going to go along with the info-tech narrative that
describes genes and DNA
' ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu ; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 10:36 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
There are two conflicting metaphors concerning the questions you raise. You
seem to have a preference for the info-tech (computer) metaphor. The second
: Stephen Jarosek
To: 'Edwina Taborsky' ; 'Ozzie'
Cc: 'Stephen C. Rose' ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu ; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 12:28 PM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
EDWINA: “I don't see anything wrong with the computer or semiosic model
not
address the concept I was interested in knowing Peirce’s views about.
John
From: Thomas [mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com]
Sent: July 20, 2015 2:03 AM
To: Stephen C. Rose
Cc: Edwina Taborsky; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen, Edwina, List
the entropic forces of disunity.
sj
From: Ozzie [mailto:ozzie...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, 20 July 2015 1:22 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek
Cc: Edwina Taborsky; Stephen C. Rose; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu;
biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen -
I believe
, 20 July 2015 5:07 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'Ozzie'
Cc: 'Stephen C. Rose'; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
1) I don't accept the comparison between a biological system which must store
common knowledge and a colony of people which
'; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
1) Stephen - Howard Bloom's analysis of the knowledge function within groups,
and his focus on the social group as the agential system - is a completely
different issue than the analysis of Sign
@list.iupui.edu;
biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen ~
You remarked: the idea of, say, a watch or a computer materializing all by
itself in nature, even within an infinite universe, has to contend against
enormous odds that render its unlikelihood
: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Ben, list -
Thanks for your interesting comments. I will spend more time thinking about
them later today.
Let me briefly address one sentence from your comments: I'd say
.
Edwina
- Original Message -
*From:* Ozzie ozzie...@gmail.com
*To:* Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com
*Cc:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
*Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2015 11:53 AM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Ben, list -
Thanks for your interesting comments. I will spend
Tom - see my replies below:
- Original Message -
From: Thomas
To: Stephen C. Rose
Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen, Edwina, List ~
I agree that instinct leads
: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen, Edwina, List ~
I agree that instinct leads to physical activity (though sometimes inside the
body where it can't be seen). But it is triggered by environmental changes.
That is the standard definition of instinct. It is not so much
@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Stephen, Edwina, List ~
I agree that instinct leads to physical activity (though sometimes inside the
body where it can't be seen). But it is triggered by environmental changes.
That is the standard definition of instinct. It is not so much
- Original Message -
From: Stephen C. Rose
To: Ozzie
Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
I wonder what controls instincts which I see as somewhat like inclinations
which suggest
Tom - thanks for your response; mine are below.
- Original Message -
From: Ozzie
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2015 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Edwina ~
My notes on habit and evolution are more wide
a tougher beak.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Ozzie
To: Benjamin Udell
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct and emotion
Ben, list -
Thanks for your interesting comments. I will spend more time thinking
Tom, list,
Thanks for the link to the dissertation. I've read the first 40 or so
pages, which include an outline of the history of the philosophy and
psychology of affectivity. I didn't know that words like 'faculty',
'passion', and 'affection' have been freighted with so much meaning, and
Ben, list -
Thanks for your interesting comments. I will spend more time thinking about
them later today.
Let me briefly address one sentence from your comments: I'd say that
instincts can also be triggered _inside_ the body, e.g., by prolonged emptiness
of the stomach.
According to the
Tom, list,
I should look terms up once in a while instead of relying on decades-old
memories or employing the word as if Peirce's sense of it were current.
(Incidentally, the Commens dictionary has two quotes from Peirce about
instinct http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/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
: Ozzie [ozzie...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:51 AM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go
@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
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
Jerry,
I agree. I ordered the book and look forward to your forthcoming post on
the topic.
As we chemists (and Peirce, I am sure), the quantitative balancing of both
sides of a chemical reaction is called stoichiometry, i.e., a branch of
science that deals with the application of the laws of
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
From: g...@gnusystems.ca [g...@gnusystems.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 5:33 PM
To: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
Jeff, yes, that makes it more general.
I asked my
AM
To: 'John Collier'; mig...@cegri.es; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
List,
I find the notion of instinct as a separate and distinct category of knowledge,
“written down in the DNA,” as it were, problematic. There must be, imho, a way
to account for instinct within
distinction.
sj
From: John Collier [mailto:colli...@ukzn.ac.za]
Sent: Wednesday, 15 July 2015 2:36 AM
To: mig...@cegri.es; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
Thanks to everyone who responded, but especially to Miguel for sending this
gem. Now I just have to figure out what
@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
I recall that Peirce said the act of abduction creates an emotion within the
individual. It struck me at the time. I took it to mean a good feeling
imprinted during infancy, when a mother (caregiver) consistently rewarded the
baby-infant
:50:28 AM
*Subject: *Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
John C., list,
Here's another Peirce quote on instinct, FWIW:
[§6. The Fallibility of Reasoning and the Feeling of Rationality
(Minute Logic, ergo 1902 or 1903)
CP 2.170.]
If I may be allowed to use the word habit, without any
, July 15, 2015 9:50:28 AM
*Subject: *Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
John C., list,
Here's another Peirce quote on instinct, FWIW:
[§6. The Fallibility of Reasoning and the Feeling of Rationality (Minute
Logic, ergo 1902 or 1903)
CP 2.170.]
If I may be allowed to use the word habit, without
From: Ozzie [ozzie...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:51 AM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
I recall that Peirce said the act of abduction creates an emotion within the
individual. It struck me
:36 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
John,
First, I agree with you that Miguel's snippet from A Theory of Probable
Inference is a gem (esp. the important truth, that all human knowledge,
up to the highest flights of science, is but the development of our inborn
animal
Claudio, list,
Just a quick response to one suggestion in your post. You wrote:
I think [. . . ] that instinct is some how related to secondness, to a more
(so to say) 'biological' aspect,
I would agree that instinct must involve the 'biological'. But I'm not so
sure that even there I'd limit
Gary, List,
you are right Gary, but there is still a strange behavior in most of us
Peirce-listers... we read and study Peirce, but then we write and
understand was is written in a strict 'positivist' way. Since everything
is a sign and every sign has to be considered triadic... then of course
[mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: July 15, 2015 3:21 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
Jeff, John, list,
Jeff, quoting Peirce, wrote:
This claims is particularly interesting: Association may happen to be of
advantage to the associating individuals; but each individual's
From: Stephen Jarosek [sjaro...@iinet.net.au]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:28 AM
To: 'John Collier'; mig...@cegri.es; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
A further observation regarding the distinction between the Peircean
.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Claudio Guerri
To: Gary Richmond ; peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
Gary, List,
you are right Gary, but there is still a strange behavior in most of us
Peirce-listers... we read
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
From: g...@gnusystems.ca [g...@gnusystems.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:01 PM
To: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
Jeff, Gary et al.,
My first thought was that instinct being a habit
that a possibility for what Peirce had in mind?
Gary f.
From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: July 15, 2015 3:21 PM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
Jeff, John, list,
Jeff, quoting Peirce, wrote:
This claims is particularly interesting: Association may happen
: Claudio Guerri [mailto:claudiogue...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 15 July 2015 9:23 PM
To: Gary Richmond; peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
Gary, List,
you are right Gary, but there is still a strange behavior in most of us
Peirce-listers... we read and study Peirce
-8354
From: Gary Richmond [gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 7:36 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
John,
First, I agree with you that Miguel's snippet from A Theory of Probable
Inference is a gem (esp. the important truth
John C., list,
Here's another Peirce quote on instinct, FWIW:
[§6. The Fallibility of Reasoning and the Feeling of Rationality
(Minute Logic, ergo 1902 or 1903)
CP 2.170.]
If I may be allowed to use the word habit, without any
implication as to the time or manner in which it
It is not obvious to me, perhaps exposing holes in my knowledge of Peirce, if
or how instinct is different from abduction.
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:50:28 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L
...@iinet.net.au]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:28 AM
To: 'John Collier'; mig...@cegri.es; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Instinct
A further observation regarding the distinction between the Peircean
paradigm (knowledge, including instinct, as learned) versus genocentrism
(instinct as data
Thanks to everyone who responded, but especially to Miguel for sending this
gem. Now I just have to figure out what lies behind it.
I agree with Jeff that the Century Dictionary entries are not particularly
useful.
I should be asleep. Best to all,
John
From: mig...@cegri.es
78 matches
Mail list logo
