BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list - I think that if YOU wish to use the term 'possibility'
as confined to metaphysics, then, that is your prerogative. But I
don't think that it's beneficial to suggest that WE [all] should use
the term in that way.
I see your usage as referring primarily to formal possibility
[3.527] but there are other kinds - those which are IN the triadic
Sign process/thing [6.371]. That is, possibility is aligned, in my
view, with existential Relations of actuality and habit. It is
obviously not Secondness nor Thirdness but as a freedom [i.e.,
Firstness] it brings that force existentially into the semiosic
formation of things which are already forming within Secondness and
Thirdness.
Edwina
On Fri 08/12/17 10:22 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt [email protected]
sent:
Jeff, List:
Once more, I am not making an interpretative claim, but a
terminological proposal. Indeed, there are other senses of
"possibility" besides the one that I have articulated, but I am
suggesting that--at least in some circumstances--it would be better
for the sake of clarity if we only use the word "possibility" when
referring to the metaphysical mode of Being that is distinct from
actuality and regularity.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
Jon S, Gary, R, List,
Jon S: Possibility is not a matter of "seeming," but of
speculating (in the sense of theorizing) on the mode of Being of what
it was that seemed or might have seemed, based on collateral
experience rather than only that which is immediately present to the
mind.
Are there other senses of "possibility" in addition to the one you
have articulated?
For aspects of our experience involving vagueness, are there a range
of possibilities lurking in the bushes? How about the experience of
what has potentiality--such as is involved in the experience of the
growth of our understanding? How about the experience of something
that is continuous, such as the experience of things being at a place
in space and at a time?
In each of these sorts of cases, I take Peirce to be claiming that
our experience involves a range of possibilities. I would think that
each of these sorts of cases involves an experience of possibilities
that is different, in important respects, from the sense that you've
articulated.
Am I missing something about what it is that you are trying to
suggest in making your interpretative claim?
--Jeff Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354 [4]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'[email protected]\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[4] http://webmail.primus.ca/tel:(928)%20523-8354
-----------------------------
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 .
