[xmca] Re: xmca Digest, Vol 29, Issue 44

From: steve houston <stevehouston3000 who-is-at yahoo.com>
Date: Thu Oct 11 2007 - 22:38:58 PDT

David, have you ever read George Spencer Brown's Law
of Form? Its equal part mathematics as philosophy,
but that was the first thing that pops into my mind
regarding the word "icon" and Peirce. Its not the
thing hes most remembered for but Peirce's existential
graphs are quite similar to Brown's arithmetic/logic.

For a brief(er) read on it:


That may not really get to your question though, I'm
not terribly familiar with Peirce although I'm reading
him with an eye towards process philosophizing

"--Peirce’s philosophy is process-oriented in several
respects. He defines truth as the unattainable goal of
a never-ending process of inquiry. Likewise, Peirce’s
semiology indicates that the meaning of signs is
always triangulated between an object, its sign, and
the infinite series of “interpretants” or subjective
impressions made by the sign upon human knowers. Thus,
Peirce correlates meaning with an ongoing and
indeterminate historical process interpretation.
Finally, Peirce was a staunch anti-determinist and
advocated tychism, the belief that the operations of
the natural world were not fixed and regular, but
exhibit considerable spontaneity."

(from the internet encylopedia of philosophy)

> I need help from someone who has read more Peirce
> than just the various single volume anthologies that
> I've read (Justin Buchler, and Philip Wiener). Tony?
> Andy? Anyone?
> My problem is with Peirce's idea of the "icon".
> It's firstness, so in Heglian terms, its the
> thing-in-itself. In Korean we say "keun-nyang", or
> "it's just that way".

Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
xmca mailing list
Received on Thu Oct 11 22:41 PDT 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 20 2007 - 14:25:43 PST