Listers, Although I haven't been closely following the Peirce-l close read of Kee's book, my husband & I have been having our own discussion of this book with our 16 year old grandson, Aaron, who has asked to attend the Centennial Conference with us this summer. Chapters one & two came easily for him (he's a math whiz). However, much of the rest of this is still over his head. We're just hoping he'll garner enough to have a meaningful experience in July. ++++++++
I'd like to begin this discussion in a topical order (in the sense of terminology), rather than chronological (in the sense of the order in the book). First, I think it may be important to compare and contrast the two main terms for these sections: a) the proof of pragmatism 7.1 & b) the pragmatic maxim 7.2. From a linguistic perspective, it seems to me that the former describes something that is a process, or method; the latter, a measure or criterion. What are your thoughts about that? If you agree with my understanding, can one term be synonymous to (or be used to explain) the other? And if so (or if not), does this chapter use these terms as such? Once we gather some points of view on this topic, we should have a springboard for discussing several other points. I look forward to hearing from you. Regards, Phyllis Chiasson -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Still on drugs. Please vett. Chapter 7.2 &7.3 From: Gary Richmond <[email protected]> To: Phyllis Chiasson <[email protected]> CC: Hi, Phyllis, Looks good. Hope they prompt discussion. I too am somewhat surprised that there haven't been any responses yet. I think a little seminar fatigue is setting in (it did about this time with the Ransdell papers slow read), and probably a little post-Easter catching up is occurring. I think my two posts are pretty solid, and I certainly offered some controversial thoughts where folk could agree with me or with Kees and offer arguments why one or the other. Well, we'll see what happens; still, it's beyond our control. Maybe your shorter posts will fare better--let's hope! Best regards, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Phyllis Chiasson < [email protected]> wrote: > > Gary, based on the lack of response to your posts (which were excellent > and may be due to people catching up after Easter week), I thought I might > approach this a little differently. In addition to where I'm heading below, > I have a good counter to Kee's claim that icons & indices can't be > general, though some are not. And i think his proof of pragmatism is off. > The proof indeed will reside in abduction, but via methodeutic " which is > nothing but heuretic and concerns abduction alone". > +++++++ > Listers, > > Although I haven't been closely following the Peirce-l close read of Kee's > book, we have been having our own discussion of this book with our 16 year > old grandson, Aaron, who has asked to attend the Centennial Conference with > us this summer. Chapters one & two came easily for him (he's a math whiz). > However, much of the rest of this is still over his head. I'm hoping he'll > garner enough to have a meaningful experience in July. > > As for these next two sections, I'd like to begin this discussion in a > topical, rather than chronological, order for discussing Chapter 7.2 & 7.3. > > First, I think it may be important to compare and contrast the two main > terms for these sections: a) the proof of pragmatism 7.1 & b) the pragmatic > maxim 7.2. > > From a linguistic perspective, it seems to me that the former describes > something that is a process, or method; the latter, a measure or criterion. > > If so, can one term be synonymous to (or be used to explain) the other? > And if so (or if not), does this chapter use these terms as such? > > Once we gather some points of view on this topic, we should have a > springboard for discussing several other points. > > I look forward to hearing from you. > > Regards, > Phyllis Chiasson > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
