Steven and Gary R:
Sorry to have overlooked that it was you who initially posted the reference
to Brier,
Steven. Your message had somehow gotten misfiled and overlooked by me and I
didn't realize at first that Gary was responding initially to your prior
post.
Joe Ransdell
- Original
to the forwarded message on information is not enough?
It looks like a must read from the business community...
Bob Chumbley
From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02/15/2006 08:02 AM
Please respond to Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
This bears on nothing currently under discussion, but I happened upon a note
copying a passage from the Logic Notebook in which Peirce explicitly defines
immediate and direct and thought I should record it here, given how
frequently the question comes up.. Of course it may or may not record
that A is _immediate_ to B means that it is present in B.
_Direct_, as I use it means without the aid of any subsidiary instruments or
operation.
-- MS 339.493; c. 1904-05 Logic Notebook
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion
Good point, Gary. Still another way of thinking about it might be to
suppose that the emphasis is supposed to fall on thing rather than sign:
no sign is a real THING rather than no sign is a REAL thing; but that
doesn't sound very plausible to me. I like your solution better.
Joe Ransdell
Ben says:
Yet attributions, ascriptions, copulations, distributions, etc., etc., of
predicates to subjects, or of accidents to substances, or of qualities to
reactions, all have a certain similarity and parallelism. Then when we
associate connotation in one way with firstness, quality,
Well, I'll sleep on it, Gary, and
see how it looks to me tomorrow.
Joe
- Original Message -
From:
Gary
Richmond
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:52
PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So
what is it all about?
Joseph
Theresa and list:
I hadn't read your message below when I sent off the self-correction in my
most recent message , but as you can see I agree with your correction of my
mistake there. I referred to the wrong lecture. I don't believe that the
point I was making was mistaken, though, -- but I
Theresa and list:
You say:
What I do not agree is with your suggestion that Peirce decided
subsequently to accommodate himself to Royce's sensibility as much as
possible (why not the other way round? that Royce, particularly after
Peirce's Lectures of 1898 (the Cambridge Conferences), was
Theresa and list:
Theresa, you say:
I agree that Peirce here was implicitly opposing himself to Royce as a
Pragmatist (and a Realist) vs.
a non-Pragmatist. But I disagree with what Joe suggests [And what I am
suggesting is that at least some of what I find most puzzling in what Peirce
is saying
Just a quick note to remark that Creath is clearly right about there being a
close relationship between the New Elements and the 1903 Harvard Lectures.
Creath gives some indication of what that is, but I won't attempt to
describe that in more detail myself at the moment since it will take some
J-MO = Jean-Marc Orliaguet
JR = Joe Ransdell
Jean-Marc says:
[J-MO] I don't really understand the subtle distinctions that you are
making
between direct and unmediated and between indirect and mediated,
and in what way they contribute to a better philosophical understanding..
REPLY:
[JR]
Clark says:
With regards to Peirce, I wonder how to consider the analysis of
persuasion that Joseph brings up - especially considering that
Peirce's ideal of science didn't really involve belief. I admit
that's a view of science in Peirce I've long struggled with. But
without belief, what is
Jean-Marc says:
Of course, not to restart an old debate... I am curious about how the
following lines are going to be interpreted:
We have a direct knowledge of real objects in every experiential
reaction, whether of /Perception/ or of /Exertion/ (the one theoretical,
the other practical). These
101 - 114 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
