Wouldn't this be true for all of nature versus the all of discovery?
Discovery is human and therefore retroductive (as are "newspapers and great
fortunes"). Nature is.
On Fri, Aug 18, 2023, 4:14 PM Matias wrote:
> Dear list members,
>
> I am trying to contextualize Peirce's reference to the long
Dear Hemut,
Thank you for this post. I am thinking about abduction again. Reflecting
upon reflection.
Phyllis
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022, 8:21 AM Helmut Raulien wrote:
> List,
>
> I am reading Nina Ort´s book "Reflexionslogik". It is not translated into
> English, I think, but there is an essay of h
Abioticsemiosis seems a lot like what is Happening in quantum physics.
Especially Carlo Rovelli's relational theory as described in Helgoland.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021, 11:07 AM Gary Richmond
wrote:
> List,
>
> I recently came upon this quite short article, "A necessary condition for
> proof of abio
much
> stopped looking for it.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
>
>
> “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication St
What about a thought expressed without language as, say, a piece of music,
a modern dance or an abstract piece of art?
On Fri, Nov 5, 2021, 12:17 PM Gary Richmond wrote:
> Gary F, Jon, List,
>
> GF: "A thought I am hosting at the moment is certainly *embodied* here
> and now in a pattern of neur
Thank you for this information. I just ordered a copy of Samson's Mind
Builder from Amazon.
On Mon, Sep 13, 2021, 2:47 PM sowa @bestweb.net wrote:
> At Whittier College, Albert Upton taught a required two-semester course
> for all freshmen. The original name was Significs, but it was later
> ch
I don't see that formal logic is logica utens. Are you defining formal and
normative differently.
On Sat, Sep 11, 2021, 3:28 PM Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> Gary F., List:
>
> As far as I can tell, Peirce makes no distinction between "mathematical
> logic" and "the logic of mathematics"; they are o
Yes. Peirce was a theist. I think he was very abstract (God as firstness)
despite the definitions, which are pretty traditional.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2021, 8:18 PM Gary Richmond wrote:
> Jon, List,
>
> Addressing Edwina, you wrote: "So I ask one more time--why not simply
> admit disagreement with his
other that the traditional
>> conception, "religiously (and even politically) loaded" though it may be.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
>> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
>> www.LinkedIn.c
Many years ago, I wrote on this topic. It's posted on Arisbe: Revisiting A
Neglected Argument for the Reality of God. It might be relevant here.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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
Yes. Language is incapable of expressing all of experience. Peirce's
emphasis on sensory experience is well taken. I always used actual
materials when working with young children. I should have done so with
older ones as well.
On Thu, Sep 9, 2021, 9:33 AM sowa @bestweb.net wrote:
> Gary F, Phyl
; with the other person's point of view and analysis!
>
> If our discussion about issues is merged with whether or not we 'like' the
> person making the argument - well, frankly, that sounds like politics to me!
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 9:42 PM ,
Edwina, I don't like conflict but feel I must say that Gary is right about
Neglected Argument. I feel upset because it seems like you are attacking
him.
Phyllis
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 6:31 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Gary R, List
>
> My point about 'existence' and 'reality' is that one can get so
erm, as used among human behaviour, IS focused around the
> sociological aspects.
>
> I don't, however, see that his outline of god was on the conduct of human
> behaviour - but on the role of Mind and Reason in the natural world - and
> in human understanding of our wo
> material nature of the organism] - means, in my view, that abduction is a
> natural mental process in all living beings.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Wed 08/09/21 6:22 PM , Phyllis Chiasson
> phyllis.marie.chias...@gmail.com sent:
>
> I've been thinking a good deal
As I recall, Peirce said nothing about worship, devotion or heaven or hell.
His take on God was based on the conduct of human behavior.
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 3:50 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Ben, list:
>
> I think that's from Aquinas' Five Arguments for the Existence of God:
> Unmoved Mover, Firs
I've been thinking a good deal about the problem of quantifying affect in
such a way as to have something from which to abduct. Surprise, delight,
awe, even disappointment can all lead to an Abductive inference. A computer
program like Watson can produce plausibilities to explain or diagnose, but
t
JS : although the historical order of inquiry is abduction/retroduction
followed by deduction and then induction, there is a sense in which its
logical order is induction followed by abduction/retroduction.
Yes. Especially since surprise is a qualitative induction..
On Wed, Sep 8, 2021, 9:48 AM
#x27; that a
> particular plant phenomenon she's been observing is caused by, say, the
> absorption of certain minerals in the soil rather than the amount of
> moisture in it.
>
> [All the quotations above can be found in the *Commens* 'Dictionary'
> under 'Re
t; “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>
>
>
&g
Gary wrote: An excerpt from "The Basis of pragmatism" makes clear that the
phaneroscopist needs a "definitie field to explore."
Phyllis' comment:
The artist and the muser don't necessarily have a goal to guide their
explorations, as for example, in pure play. The creations/discoveries begin
in th
My experience with Peirce's phenomenology began with teaching adolescents
how to"do" the three categories in order to improve reasoning and writing
skills. I used Upton & Sampson's workbook, Creative Analysis. The system is
simple, the results were phenomenal. Because of this experience over 45
yea
forms with those mathematics has studied, " (
>> [C.S.
>> Peirce, 1976: NEM, vol III.2 1122], MS 1345) otherwise there would be
>> only empirical sciences, and we would still be at the physics of Aristotle
>> and the chemistry of phlogiston.
>> H
Thank you for this. Peirce said that the task of the phenomenologist is to
observe and to classify observations. This is a good example of that.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, 8:30 AM Jon Awbrey wrote:
> All,
>
> Continuing with our Phenomenological∫Phaneroscopic survey of
> colleges and their course cat
Correction: The benign neglect. Thing Did not belong with the rest of my
comments.
Phyllis Chiasson wrote:
>
>Main
>
>Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who
>was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs adviser.
>
Main
Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who
was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs adviser.
I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I admit
that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want
Jeffrey and listers,
Somehow this msg did not come through to me, but my husband, who is also on
the list, got it. I'd be very interested in seeing your paper. I'm interested
in the semiotics for communicating pain. Many of the descriptions available are
so ambiguous as to be useless. I'm sure
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReNavhcXUYk
>
>Regards,
>
>Jon
>
>Phyllis Chiasson wrote:
>> Listers, A subject has recently entered my personal awareness
>> (experientially, unfortunately) and I'm wondering if there is anyone working
>> on the difficult
is subject.
Regards,
Phyllis Chiasson
-
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...
>growth. , , [T]he development of Reason requires as a part of it the
>occurrence of more individual events than ever can occur. It requires, too,
>all the coloring of all qualities of feeling, including pleasure in its proper
>place among the rest. This development of Reason consists, y
t;Philosophy and Critical Thinking
>
>Communication Studies
>
>LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
>
>C 745
>
>718 482-5690
>
>
>
>On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Phyllis Chiasson wrote:
>
>Gary R wrote:that Induction split, at once, in
Gary R wrote:that Induction split, at once, into the Sampling of Collections,
and the Sampling of Qualities. . . " (*Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of
Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism*, Turrisi, ed. 276-7).
Yet later, in1908 in NA, Peirce identified 1. Retro. 2 ded
and falisity might be reversed, or might not even
apply.
Regards,
Phyllis Chiasson
Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
>Gary F., Gary R., Cathy Legg, John Kaag, Jerry, List,
>
>Jerry says: "My personal feeling about your exposition is that such a view of
>material and formal catego
Thank you, Khadmir. I doubt I could access those archives. I don't need the
information, just struck by the Peircean-like use of Reason for Tao. From my
experience, it is not an entirely comfortable word to use for Tao, either, as
the Tao itself provides the definition of Tao, but Reason does no
Listers,
I am reading Paul Carus's translation of the Tao, in which he uses the term,
Reason, for Tao. E.g. " The Reason that can be Reasoned is not the eternal
Reason."
Since Carus & Peirce were connected, does anyone know if use of the term,
Reason, for Tao comes from Peirce, or relates to
i can enlarge type size, I am now
assured of being ABLE to read each chapter.
Regards,
Phyllis Chiasson
Regards, Phyllis Chiasson
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L po
Is there some way to access this without goiing through facebook?
Gary Richmond wrote:
>-- Forwarded message --
>
>From: Robert Lane
>Date: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 2:07 PM
>Subject: [Charles S. Peirce Society]
>https://muse.jhu.edu/journals/transactions_of_the_...
>To: "Charles S.
Phyllis Chiasson wrote:
>Jon, listers,
>
>I wonder how Neglected Argument would be generally perceived today had Peirce
>chosen to write it as A Neglected Argument for the Reality of Love? The God
>word is almost as polarizing today as Republican and Democrat. In his time,
tic anemia). I'm told I will make a
full recovery, eventually. I'm still on high doses of steroids and it will take
about 4 months to taper off. Meanwhile, my brain is coming out of its fog, so
I'm hoping to use this confinement productively.
Regards,
Phyllis Chiasson
-
Stephen,
I have always thought Peirce considered "surprise" as the beginning of doubt,
and doubt the thing that must be settled to have enough belief to act. 1st,
2nd,3rd.
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this mes
My experience with NA has lead me to similar understandings. If God and love
are synonymous terms, as even many fundamentalists will agree. And if love
(&justice) are Real forces as Peirce says, then love and/or God is (or can be)
physically efficient. The future effects of said efficiency rely
Am I correct in interpreting Peirce's concept of Nominalism as believing that
we make it up as we go; that before we name a thing or concept, it does not
have being? And that Peirce's realism says things, including concepts and
stuff, have being (and therefore reality) whether anyone ever knows
Phyllis Chiasson wrote:
>Jon & List,
>
>I didn't mean it was worth reading because it was a great treatise of
>pragmatism, Peirce's or otherwise, but because it wasn't and it was in the NY
>Times. I wonder if there is a message here for us-something like taki
Did you read the comments following the piece?
Jon Awbrey wrote:
>good grief, what tripe ...
-
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, sen
Worth reading.
From The New York Times From China, With Pragmatism Are the Chinese outdoing
Americans at their own philosophical game? http://nyti.ms/1kayA0Z Get The New
York Times on your mobile device and share articles and videos with your
friends: http://www.nytimes.com/services/mobile/apps
>interactions. I can remember long homework assignments in Latin and English,
>marking out the nouns, verbs, adverbs and so on, and their relations - and
>understanding such a logical framework slides over into understanding that
>such a framework exists in daily life as well.
&g
Listers,
Although I know well that 'anecdote' is not singular for 'data,' I might have
some experience to contribute to this discussion. We have 5 grown children (our
youngest is 40). All three of our girls are adopted. The oldest was adopted at
birth; the other 2 (half sisters) were adopted to
>
>gary f.
>
>
>
>} When I'm dreaming back like that I begins to see we're only all
>telescopes. [Finnegans Wake 295] {
>
>www.gnusystems.ca/gnoxic.htm }{ gnoxics
>
>
>
>From: Phyllis Chiasson [mailto:ath...@olympus.net]
>Sent: 3-Jun-14 9:32 PM
I've ordered Natural Propositions, but Diagrammatology is very expensive (yes,
I know my last book was priced even more outrageously high). Does anyone know
where I might secure a relatively inexpensive copy? I very much want to read it.
Phyllis
U Pascal wrote:
>Thanks Gary. I am also working
List,
I've been following this discussion as well as I can while staying with a 3 yr
old. There are surely posts I've missed. In any case, I am wondering what you
think about the big difference between what Peirce personally believed might be
so and the slice he could represent in a proposition
ing are frequent victims of the most onerous
>characterizations. We often torment ourselves over the characterizations of
>us by others.
>
>*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>
>
>On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Phyllis Chiasson
>wrote:
>
>> S
racteristic) or say that
>of anyone I am in violation of the command judge not that you be not
>judged. I see even "Peircean" as a sort of litmus test (are you are aren't
>you?). Does this explain it? Cheers, S
>
>*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>
Stephen,
I don't understand your post.
Phyllis
"Stephen C. Rose" wrote:
>"Peircean" Yikes. The problem is that anything we do about Peirce of anyone
>really is characterization which I hold to be at worst a curse and at best
>a brake on the inherent freedom of anyone to grow, change or, ahem,
>
ted "memory content",
without acknowledging the quality, thing (entity), relationship triad. It seems
as though the simplification of the terminology of semiotic structure could
lead to difficulty analyzing/interpreting structural and operational meaning.
Regards,
Phyllis Chiasson
Phyll
I've misspelled a name here. It is John Deely --no extra e.
Phyllis Chiasson wrote:
>Yes, I think it would be more correct from Peirce's perspective to say that
>green is a quality (property, characteristic) of some frogs. Qualities may (or
>likely do) relate to the phy
uot;FRONTIERS IN SEMIOTICS." I find that diagram and Deeley's introduction to this
book as a very useful overview for understanding/explaining the breadth/depth
of Peircean semiotics (and its contrast with de Saussure).
Regards,
Phyllis Chiasson
Helmut Raulien wrote:
>(oops, ok,
Can a quality be an object? Or is an object a relationship between a quality
(or qualities) and a thing?
Helmut Raulien wrote:
>Dear Peircers,
>
>I think, there is one assumption that hinders the understanding of semiotics:
>The triad of representamen-object-interpretant suggests, that there b
Mara, Gary, List,
Or could it be both? Peirce identifed pure chance as a real and operable
element of reality. If chance is real, as however small an element of reality,
then the idea that laws (and even the universe itself) evolve would be real as
well. There must be a Peircean (non-nominalist
Hi listers,
I will be presenting Peirce's Neglected Argument for a Tucson Philosophy group
at 7pm on Monday, May 12 at the Old Pueblo on the east side of Alvernon, just
north of Broadway. If there are any Peirceans nearby, I'd sure welcome your
company!
Regards,
Phyllis
--
Gary, list:
Here's how I see it:
Authority & tenacity have to do with crude induction (on the part of the
believer, if not the source). A priori depends upon a fixed (non-abductively
derived) hypothesis (again upon the part of the believe, if not fhe source) and
the method of science is retroduc
;"that it is only the general which we can understand."
>
>
>And today I still would say that this later *severing the ties to the
>particular* does strongly suggest that his earlier analysis of the diamond
>example was to some degree nominalistic in not fully seeing "
Kees provides interesting information here about the swirling background of (as
well as nominalistic misinterpretations of) Peirce's pragmatic maxim. Much
discussion has already occurred about the transubstantiation example (and still
is.) Therefore, I would like to jump directly to Peirce's exa
epts.
>Likewise, I wouldn't say that "Argument ... is a definitional process", even
>Argument as opposed to Argumentation. In order to produce belief, an argument,
>even though it "relies upon definitional clarity", surely must involve some
>appeal to experienc
How about "direct" as opposed to "analytical" or "critical" (as in critical
thinking)?
Phyllis
Gary Richmond wrote:
>I'm not sure "insistent" or "imperative" quite do it either. How about
>"arbitrary"? Anyhow, as you noted, Gary, what we're looking for would only
>work "for a thumbnail ske
his evolved philosophy.
>
>*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>*
>
>
>On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:47 AM, Phyllis Chiasson wrote:
>
>> Mara & listers,
>>
>> Mara noted in an earlier post that she did not see a proof of pragmatism
>> in Cha
ether we should not apply it to
>pragmaticism rather than pragmatism. CSP would not have coined the term had he
>not wished to underline a distinction. And I suspect it deserves to be used
>posthumously as the name he gave to his evolved philosophy.
>@stephencrose
>
>
>
>On Fri, M
Gary R. Gary F & Cathy,
Very nice. I'm saving this somewhere that i won't lose it.
Phyllis
Gary Richmond wrote:
>Gary, Cathy, list,
>
>So, slightly modifying Cathy's list in consideration of Gary F's comments
>we get (and, personally, with an eye to introducing these methods to
>students):
>
>
abduction/retroduction.
Regards,
Phyllis Chiasson
[The next (final?) post for this chapter will be 7.2.3 The Pragmatic Maxim]
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts
exposure to phenomena in positive ways when she was growing up, though it did
absolutely nothing to help her learn to read, etc. (And, yes there were
tutors...many) on
Phyllis Chiasson wrote:
>Ben & Listers,
>
>You wrote: Well, my experience with basic categorical thinking, e
sophy so begins, and also
as a present-day practical matter, in the sense that people interested in
the proof don't always know Peirce's phanerscopy and categories well. Well,
my experience with basic categorical thinking, even before I first read
Peirce, has been that basic philosophical ca
want to see more
detail.
Jeff Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
NAU
(o) 523-8354
From: Phyllis Chiasson [ath...@olympus.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 1:39 PM
To: 'Mara Woods'; 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Chapter 7.2.1 The Proof of Pr
#x27;d really like to know more about how they work.
Regards,
Phyllis
_
From: Gary Richmond [mailto:gary.richm...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:46 PM
To: Phyllis Chiasson
Cc: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Chapter 7.2.1 The Proof of Pragmatism &
Phenomenology
P
tems,
Ford's book seems to me to address the reciprocal nature of the process of
retroduction. Though he doesn't use that word in the book, he did use it for
his classes at the University of Washington back when I met with him in the
late 1980's.
Regards,
Phyllis Chiasson
Listers
I would like to approach this section about Kee's discussion of the 'proof
of pragmatism' backwards--from experience to theory. I came into my
understanding of pragmatism in this way and still find it difficult to
analyze from the other direction. I've many years of practical experience
wi
ther some points of view on this topic, we should have a springboard
for discussing several other points.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Phyllis Chiasson
Original Message
Subject: Re: Still on drugs. Please vett. Chapter 7.2 &7.3
From: Gary Richmond
To: Ph
Eric Sevareid said "The chief cause of problems is solutions."
Eugene Halton wrote:
>I’m attempting to extrapolate from the exchange between Phyllis and Stefan,
>though these comments are not directed to them.
>
>Phyllis Chiasson: “In the full statement, Peirce said th
But Stefan, Peirce's pragmatism is value driven, that's why he coined his term,
prope-positivism, to counter Comte's positivism. Valuation in the human sense
is what makes an abductive inference possible. Retroduction is the logic of
value, even in it's an objective (non-human) sense as the oper
77 matches
Mail list logo
