List, I think, for example, before we further analyze which determines which, e.g. the FI the DI or not, we should first get to a clearer definition of "determination", also by looking how it is used today in mathematics: deterministic chaos versus non-deterministic. Is determination non-causal, not completely ("straightforwardly") causal, or completely causal? If Peirce´s use of the term differs from the contemporary mathematical term meaning, it is difficult.
Also, the question appeared by the way, whether the two objects and the three interpretants are aspects or two or three different objects or interpretants. I think, we should get to a consensus about that. I e.g. think, the two or three are not only aspects, but functional parts of the object and the interpretant. Every time there is talk about externality or internality of a sign part to the sign, I am annoyed somehow, because I (imho) think: Being a functional part of something is not about that.
I also am totally unclear about this replica-thing. Why is something a replica, if something similar has happened before?
I also feel unwell with boiling thirdness down to habits. I think it is habits and laws, and think, that there are laws that are not habits, but universal necessities, e.g. the (or most, or some) laws of logic.
Best, Helmut
07. April 2018 um 08:07 Uhr
"John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net>
"John F Sowa" <s...@bestweb.net>
I strongly agree with Mike B and Gary R.
MB
> I humbly suggest that intersection of interests is a more practical
> domain of inquiry than trying to find where your interpretations differ.
GR
I have always thought... that those who want to promote Peirce's
philosophy in the world at large ought attempt to find what is most
powerful, potentially productive and heuristic in Peirce that we can
more or less come to tentatively and fallibly agree on. Perhaps then
we can explore ways to send his profound insights into the world,
agreeing that some of these are considerable, perhaps inestimable
potential value.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
MB
> I humbly suggest that intersection of interests is a more practical
> domain of inquiry than trying to find where your interpretations differ.
GR
I have always thought... that those who want to promote Peirce's
philosophy in the world at large ought attempt to find what is most
powerful, potentially productive and heuristic in Peirce that we can
more or less come to tentatively and fallibly agree on. Perhaps then
we can explore ways to send his profound insights into the world,
agreeing that some of these are considerable, perhaps inestimable
potential value.
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
