Stephen R., Edwina, List: SCR: The result of his root premise is the inevitable suggestion that the universe is information and that this is the stuff of the universe.
How exactly would you define "information" as invoked in this statement? How (if at all) is this different from saying (as Peirce did) that the Universe is a Sign composed of Signs, or (as I did) that it is a *semiosic continuum*? ET: We used to as you say, be able to disagree with abandon on this list, but that has changed into a situation where we either follow the mantra or - we are 'unPeircean'. That is, disagreements in interpretation or analysis are no longer accepted as such, but are viewed as 'violations of the truth-of-Peirce'. Please identify where anyone participating in any of the current List discussions has adopted such a militant stance. For example, John Sowa and I have disagreed sharply, but *not once* alleged that the other's position is "unPeircean" or a "violation of the truth-of-Peirce," whatever that would even mean. SCR: At least people include you in their replies. I obviously cannot speak for anyone else, but in all honesty, I rarely quote or otherwise respond to your posts simply because I often struggle to see their relevance to the subject matter of the thread. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 1:03 PM Stephen Curtiss Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > At least people include you in their replies. > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 10:51 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Well, I think it's a serious issue. We used to as you say, be able to >> disagree with abandon on this list, but that has changed into a situation >> where we either follow the mantra or - we are 'unPeircean'. That is, >> disagreements in interpretation or analysis are no longer accepted as >> such, but are viewed as 'violations of the truth-of-Peirce'. And that >> moves a list up against a wall. >> >> Edwina >> >> On Sun 03/02/19 10:40 AM , Stephen Curtiss Rose [email protected] sent: >> >> I am laughing Edwina because we used to be able to disagree with abandon >> but all we do now is agree that something has happened. I think it is >> nothing that is here -- but something in the cosmosphere -- the point at >> which the academy reached its limit and C. P. Snow smiled in Heaven. Life >> goes on. As does continuity. And they are not exactly the same. >> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >> >> On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 9:51 AM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> I agree with Stephen's concerns. I think that the repeated focus on >>> terminology, with the agenda of insisting that it's 'this term' and not >>> 'that term' obscures and makes almost irrelevant the real point of Peircean >>> semiosis which is, in my view, as Stephen points out, 'that the universe is >>> information'. >>> >>> It is this 'fact' which is the basis of Peircean semiosis and I consider >>> that this is the key area of analysis. Unfortunately, this list at this >>> time, doesn't have that same focus. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> On Sun 03/02/19 8:44 AM , Stephen Curtiss Rose [email protected] sent: >>> >>> Peirce is relevant for having suggested all thought is in signs. Pierce >>> fuels folk who are looking past he could see but where he knew of. This was >>> known when this list began. It is lost now in the back and forth which >>> continues despite its impossibility which you point out. The result of his >>> root premise is the inevitable suggestion that the universe is information >>> and that this is the stuff of the universe. >>> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=the+universe+is+information >>> amazon.com/author/stephenrose >>> >>>
----------------------------- 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 .
