Kirsti, List: I am indeed exploring the hypothesis that all Signs can be classified, but not necessarily assuming that this is always easy to do. On the contrary, I recognize the difficulty in many cases, including this one in particular--which is why I sought input from the List.
"Our existing universe" is not limited to the past; it includes the future, but it obviously does not include any other universes or "Platonic worlds." How exactly would you pose "the Kantian question about 'Das Ding an sich'? What makes you think that I am "trying to get a short way out of" it? Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 7:29 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > The presupposition in your question(s)you do not take up is the > presupposition that all signs can and may be (easily) classified. - If you > look up some detailed versions of Peirces classifications of signs, and > you'll see what kinds of problems I mean. > > "Our existing universe" does not go hand in hand with "laws of nature". > The nature of laws is to predict what is to come, what will happen (if so > and so...). So they are about the future, just as well. > > It seems to me that you are trying to get a short way out of the Kantian > question about "Das Ding an sich", the thing in itself. - There is no short > and simple way! > That much is shown beyond doubt by today. > > Best, Kirsti Määttänen
----------------------------- 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 .
