Gary R., List: Could you please elaborate on what you (and Peirce) mean by "virtual" in this context? Citations of appropriate passages are sufficient if I just need to do some rereading.
Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > As Peirce uses the term, I would say that the immediate object has a > *virtual* existence. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Edwina, Helmut, List: >> >> Just wondering--is it right to say that the immediate object *exists*? >> As object, it falls under Secondness (actuality); but as immediate, it >> falls under Firstness (possibility). >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Helmut, list - the dynamic object, i.e., an objective existentiality, >>> doesn't determine the immediate object [which exists only within the >>> semiosic interaction] ONLY via efficient causality [which does operate >>> within a linear temporality in that semiosic interaction] , but via final >>> causality - which operates as a continuity of the process of Mind. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Cc:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> ; Peirce-L >>> <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 18, 2016 10:20 AM >>> *Subject:* Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Abductive Form of Inference - CP 5.189 >>> vs. CP 6.469 >>> >>> Jerry, Jon, list, >>> I think that this example shows, that ordinality is not necessarily in >>> accord with categoriality, because categorically induction is secondness >>> and deduction thirdness. >>> So, what is ordinality? Does it merely mean the sequence in time, or >>> does it mean the causation / determination sequence? This question would be >>> irrelevant, if both causation and temporality always were in accord with >>> each other. But: There is a temporality possible, which is not based on >>> causation: The temporal sequence of contingent events. And: May there be a >>> causation backwards in time, like with an anticipation? Is it so, that with >>> an anticipation, though the immediate object yet is existing, the dynamical >>> object is anticipated, i.e. exists in the future merely, so if you say, >>> that the dynamical object too determines the sign, this would be a >>> causation backwards in time? >>> Best, >>> Helmut >>> >>>
----------------------------- 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 .
