NEW YORK PRAGMATIST FORUM
Fordham University @ Lincoln Center
Columbus (9th) Ave & 60th St, New York, New York, USA
Lowenstein Building, Room 708
Friday, November 20, 2015, 5:30-7:30 p.m.
- - - - - - -
News from Paris: African American Pragmatism Today
- - - - - - -
Jacoby Carter (John Jay
Ben, Jerry,
In general, I ditto Ben's interleaved remarks from his post. In particular,
I will note a couple of differences:
Jerry wrote:
Consider the sentence:
> Harry fought Peter and contrast it with it's "twin", Peter fought Harry.
> Does it have the same logical meaning as the first sentenc
List, Jerry,
Peirce was interested in relations, right? - So, with a sentence, he
reduced it to a relational rhema, like - fought -.
This expresses the ralation of figthing. The lines just express a
logical "place", which may be be Harry or Peter, or Kirsti or anyone.
This rhema is about a
Hi,
To my mind, Jerry is right in pointing out a general neglect on the
significance of chemistry in Peirce's philosophy. - Today, browsing
Essential Peirce, vol 2, I was dismayed, again, with the note of the
editors of a footnote of CSP on chemistry, left out. - With the excuse,
that it is l
Come to think of it, Peirce would probably call "copulative conjunction"
the conjunction of two predicates just as well as the conjunction of two
propositions. More generally it seems simply the logical "and".
/p/&/q/ /Gx/&/Hx/ ∃(/G/&/H/) etc.
or more typically
/pq/ /GxHx/ ∃/GH/ etc.
The Centu
Jerry, Frank, list,
Responses interleaved below.
On 11/9/2015 1:56 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
[JC] List, Frank, Ben:
This discussion has very deep roots into the foundations of CSP's
thinking, at least in my opinion. Pragmatically, the situation of the
logic of grammatical terms and it re
List, Frank, Ben:
This discussion has very deep roots into the foundations of CSP's thinking, at
least in my opinion. Pragmatically, the situation of the logic of grammatical
terms and it relationships to formal logics is an unresolved issue, at least
from my perspective. CSP's writings open u
Helmut, list,
The immediate, dynamical, and final interpretants are 1st, 2nd, and 3rd,
respectively, in their trichotomy, and abduction, induction, and
deduction are usually considered 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, respectively in
their trichotomy. So they align in some sense; they rhyme, 1st with 1st,
Ben, List,
I am sorry for having not known this (scientifical) meaning of "degenerate". Now, do you think, that abduction, induction, and deduction somehow can be assigned to the immediate, dynamical, and final interpretant? In this case, maybe, every sign "posesses" these three inferences, bec
Peircers,
This has to do with hypostatic abstraction
and its iterative limit in what Peirce
called “continuous predicates”.
Some excerpts and discussion on these pages:
• http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2008/08/08/hypostatic-abstraction/
• http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Hypostatic_abst
Helmut, list,
I didn't mean that remembering, for example, is a result of an actual
degeneration of inference. I meant that, if one considers it as
inference, it seems a lower form of it, lacking certain properties that
one associates with inference, such that one wouldn't usually think of
it
11 matches
Mail list logo
