BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Agreed - uniformity and habit-taking are negentropic. But Firstness
is entropic in nature.
The habits are not Mind but are the result of the actions of Mind.
Mind has three properties: Firstness, Secondness,
Edwina, Clark, List:
ET: To the contrary, Mind ends up as generalities. "In endless time, it
is destined to think all that it is capable of thinking.a
generalization of order" 6.490 Since Mind refers to the 'habit-taking
capacity' then, what appears to be the ultimate limit, in my view, is
Clark, list - at the moment, I'm going to disagree - that is, I'm
not entirely convinced by your outline.
The way I see it, is that Mind doesn't 'end up in the Final
Interpretant phase' as particular instantiations. To the contrary,
Mind ends up as generalities.
"In endless
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Clark Goble wrote:
>
> I know that was all long, but I want to return to Edwina’s initial comment
> that firstness is both chance and entropy. For Peirce, I’ve hopefully shown,
> those are actually opposed. Firstness is what violates entropy.
> On Apr 3, 2017, at 12:59 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> That is - I am also suggesting that Firstness is not simply quality, feeling,
> chance - but - is entropy.
Could you unpack that a little more? I *think* I understand what you’re getting
at — how chance undermines
Edwina, List:
ET: That is - I am also suggesting that Firstness is not simply quality,
feeling, chance - but - is entropy.
I guess I need to get more up to speed on how Sign-action works in the
physico-chemical and biological realms before we can tie up this particular
loose end. Please keep
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }See
my comments:
1) ET: But what happens when an instantiation is isolated from
interaction with other instances?
JAS: This sounds like "existing outside semeiosis." Is that even
possible? Once a Sign is "born"--determined by
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }See
my replies:
1] ET: I agree with the above outline - except, again, for my
concern over confining the Sign-as-a-triad to its internal
composition. I'm thinking of, for example, a paramecium. Is it, as an
existential reality,
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jon, list - see my comments below:
--
1] ET: I think we have, remaining, ONE 'difference', which is in
point 4 below.
That is what I anticipated, but I thought it was important to
confirm it so that we are not surprised if
Edwina, List:
ET: I think we have, remaining, ONE 'difference', which is in point 4
below.
That is what I anticipated, but I thought it was important to confirm it so
that we are not surprised if and when it comes up again in the future.
ET: I don't think that the Sign is only an INTERNAL
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
See my comments below - and yes, I think we are making progress in
understanding each other's views better. I think we have, remaining,
ONE 'difference', which is in point 4 below.
--
On Sat 01/04/17 4:52 PM , Jon Alan
Edwina, List:
It is very gratifying to make so much progress in (finally) understanding
each other better. I am sincerely sorry that we were not able to get to
this point sooner.
ET: I don't think I'm ready to reduce the Immediate Interpretant to a
potentiality held within the Representamen
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list -
OK - I'll take each point.
1)You write: " I would suggest that an Immediate Interpretant is
never an actual interpretant that a Sign produces, but rather a range
of possible interpretants
13 matches
Mail list logo