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

2015-05-09 Thread Frederik Stjernfelt
; Dato: mandag den 4. maj 2015 18.45 Til: Peirce-L 1 mailto:PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>> Cc: Frederik Stjernfelt mailto:stj...@hum.ku.dk>> Emne: 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 an

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

2015-05-05 Thread Gary Fuhrman
...@roadrunner.com] Sent: May 5, 2015 10:56 AM To: Gary Fuhrman; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce-L 1' Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8567] Re: Natural At 08:57 AM 5/5/2015, Gary Fuhrman wrote: 306 in NP is actually a blank page, so I don't have the context here.

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

2015-05-05 Thread Howard Pattee
y 4, 2015 9:46 AM To: Gary Fuhrman; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; 'Peirce-L 1' Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8567] Re: Natural   At 09:49 AM 5/2/2015, Gary Fuhrman wrote: Frederik, you wrote, [So here I agree with Howard (and I guess P would do so as well) that the right direction is to

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

2015-05-05 Thread Gary Fuhrman
'Peirce-L 1' Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8567] Re: Natural At 09:49 AM 5/2/2015, Gary Fuhrman wrote: Frederik, you wrote, [So here I agree with Howard (and I guess P would do so as well) that the right direction is to generalize the observer-phenomenon distinction

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

2015-05-04 Thread Stephen C. Rose
Seems to me that in a triad you are acknowledging that it is a unity and that everything in it is subsumed to the point that such things as subject and object are if there at all blurred. The object of a triad might be seen as an expression, an action or both, following the Pragmatic Maxim -- the

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

2015-05-04 Thread Jerry LR Chandler
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] RE: [biosemiotics:8567] Re: Natural

2015-05-04 Thread Howard Pattee
At 09:49 AM 5/2/2015, Gary Fuhrman wrote: Frederik, you wrote, [So here I agree with Howard (and I guess P would do so as well) that the right direction is to generalize the observer-phenomenon distinction so as to cover all biological organisms.] GF: I agree about the right direction, but I don

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

2015-05-02 Thread Gary Fuhrman
Frederik, you wrote, [So here I agree with Howard (and I guess P would do so as well) that the right direction is to generalize the observer-phenomenon distinction so as to cover all biological organisms.] I agree about the right direction, but I don’t see that Howard does, because he defin