Jon, List ~ Here is how I interpreted Markku's comment: Because a semiotics process underlies the logical thinking of people, animals and plants, then the logic/thoughts that are the subject of a philosopher's investigation/analysis are not themselves nominalistic. They are (intended to be) pragmatic.
The nominalism label in the poem must, perforce, apply to the thinking of a confused philosopher. His/her analytical approach is the Object of "nominal" (a Sign) in the poem. The poem is a critique of (some) philosophers. Instead of a simple verse, I sense that Peirce's preferred poetic form would be a limerick comprised of palindromes. Regards, Tom Wyrick On Jul 31, 2015, at 10:00 PM, Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: Marccu, List, I sometimes use “nominal thinking” as another name for nominalism even as I use “pragmatic thinking” as another name for pragmatism. Now there is a punny bit of ribbing in that, as a nominal thinker is a “thinker in name only”, but how could a nominalist object to a general name without giving up the ghost of nominal philosophy? Regards, Jon On 7/30/2015 5:50 PM, marccu s wrote: > I do not understand how ‘thinking’ could be nominal? > I suppose there are not such a phenomenon as ‘nominal thinking’. > Misunderstanding and understanding (results of thinking) etc are > both based on information formation within society in relation to > other subjects and objects etc. > > kindly, markku > > Lähetetty laitteesta Windowsin sähköposti > > Lähettäjä: Jon Awbrey > Lähetetty: torstai, 30. heinäkuuta 2015 18:10 > Vast.ott: [email protected] > > Post : Zeroth Law Of Semiotics > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2015/07/30/zeroth-law-of-semiotics/ > Date : July 30, 2015 at 10:00 am > > Peircers, > > New (if not exactly novel) discussions of the so-called "Liar Paradox" > have broken out at several places on the web in recent weeks and these > always bring to my mind at least a number of critical ways in which the > Peircean paradigm of logic as semiotics differs from the fallback paradigm > that bedevils the thinking of those who have yet to see by Peirce's lights. > > And that brings to my mind at least the following oldie but still goodie > that articulates what I take to be the issue at the root of this and many > other pseudo-problems. (I have revised the title a bit for this edition.) > > Zeroth Law Of Semiotics > ======================= > > Meaning is a privilege not a right. > Not all pictures depict. > Not all signs denote. > > Never confuse a property of a sign, > just for instance, existence, > with a sign of a property, > for instance, existence. > > Taking a property of a sign > for a sign of a property > is the zeroth sign of > nominal thinking > and the first > mistake. > > Also Sprach 0* > 2002 October 09 > http://lyris.ttu.edu/read/messages?id=32824 > -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache ----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
