Gary R., list,
This seems to be error-confession month. I've a few new ones of my own
now to mention.
As regards _/logica utens/_ and _/logica docens/_, I confused things a
bit, for example by asking whether mathematical reasoning IS one or IS
the other, rather than asking, on which of them
Returning to Gary’s question about moving from the phaneron to what is
extracted from it ‘for cognitive purposes’ — I don’t know whether my
impressions will advance the discussion, but I might as well voice them anyway.
First, the act of “extracting” anything from the phaneron is (to me)
Ben, List,
Well, I hope we are now both mea culpa-ed out.
Just a couple of points as your message was overall quite clear. You wrote:
BU: I find it quite difficult to think of phanerscopic issues without
applying ideas as principles such as universality from logical
quantification, difficult
Hello Jerry, List,
An additional thing we probably need to consider as we reflect on Peirce's 19th
century understanding of chemistry and physics is his engagement with Maxwell's
approach to magnetic and electrical fields. I suspect that he draws on these
kinds of models in his account of the
Gary F., List,
Gary, thanks for this message. We seem to see things a bit differently
terminologically, and there are a couple of substantive matters upon which
we seem to be in disagreement as well. You concluded your interesting
comments on the question of moving from the phaneron to what is
Gary, list,
Regarding the Kehler letter, it's true that it may be tailored to its
singular audience, but I also had in mind MS 675, also from 1911, where
Peirce defines logic not as the science of allvehicles of psychic
influence but as the science of a certain kind of signs alone (the
Ben, List,
I just read the message you linked to. I must say that I find Peirce's
thinking and terminology (e.g., logon) in 1911 quite confusing and even
off-putting. Perhaps he's experimenting at the time--in the midst of an
experiment never quite completed; or one abandoned. But, for example,
Gary F, Gary R, List,
I always thought that information theorists should study Peircean
semiotics because
The Peircean sign may be viewed as the fundamental (042414-1)
carrier of information.
This morning it occurred to me that the Peircean sign, viewed as a
mathematical category, may
