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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 8:24 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > Supplement: Now one of my weird ideas: Peirce starts with firstness, and > relation of firstness with itself leads from (1) to (1.1), and then to > (1.1.1), and so on, so in this case, the relation is not really

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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 10:02 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > I agree that Peirce does not start with firstness in that sense that "in the > beginning there was 1ns." And I agree that 1ns cannot be separated from the > other Pythagorean categories (although, admittedly, in

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

> On Nov 30, 2015, at 11:18 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > To you think this citation is consistent with the physics of the 21st > Century? How do you integrate physical-chemical reasoning into this citation? I think this is meant to refer to evolution prior to