Jeff, Gary F., List:
Some of my first posts had to do with the order of determination of the ten
trichotomies, so I welcome this discussion--although I continue to hope for
some feedback on my suggestion that the Immediate/Dynamic Objects and
Immediate/Dynamic/Normal Interpretants might
List:
A logician, an engineer, and an anthropologist walked into a bar.
"Alcoholic or non-alcoholic?" the bartender asked them.
"Alcoholic beverages will hardly find defenders today," replied the
logician.
"We only serve three non-alcoholic drinks here," the bartender stated
flatly.
I do also think that this must be what synechism means. But what then is the
habit that drives evolution and the growth if mind. I have sometime compared it
to Schopenhauer’s Will.
Søren
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: 22. august 2016 18:40
To: Søren Brier;
Jon, list:
Yes, we are repeating ourselves and have effectively not convinced each other
of the veracity of our differing views!
With regard to Peirce's realism which refers to generals - he DID say this and
refers to the causality of generals as 'final cause'. "Mind has its universal
mode of
Edwina, List:
We are pretty much just repeating ourselves now, but I will offer a few
additional comments.
ET: Realism refers to generals and the fact that they are 'real' in that
they exert causality within matter.
This is not Peirce's definition of "real"; instead, throughout his career,
he
Jon, list
I don't think that 'objective idealist' means 'both idealist and realist'. My
own view is that it means that Mind exists within its instantiation in Matter.
Realism refers to generals and the fact that they are 'real' in that they exert
causality within matter.
I don't think that a
Jeff, this is quite an elaborate project you've laid out for us! I'm eager
to see what comes out of it, but at the same time I feel the need to take it
in small steps (anyway that's all I will have time to do).
It seems to me that a pragmatic classification system always begins with a
Søren: I also appreciate your thoughtful comments, and agree that Peirce
was both an idealist and a (three-category, eventually) realist; that is
precisely what I think he meant by "objective idealist." I will just note
that a Sign (not its tokens) is certainly neither physical nor
Soren, Edwina, Jon, Jeff, List:
It appears to me that there are two considerations;
1) whether we can know and communicate an objective manner by which to
distinguish the *correct* form from the variety of interpretants/meanings
and
2) whether Peirce is able to aid us.
>From my point
Dear Soren:
Thank you for your comments - I agree; I think that the debate on 'which is
first' rests within our dualism, derived from Cartesianism.
That's why I see Peirce's objective idealism as NOT the same as idealism, which
does present Mind as primordial/primary. Nor is it materialism
Dear Jon and Edwina
In a way I think that you are both right. But I think the focus on if matter or
mind was first is not very fruitful and may come from our dualistic upbringing.
I view Peirce as a synechist triadic process philosopher. He has accepted the
term objective idealist for his
Jon, list
With regard to the reality/fact, that we are BOTH reasonably intelligent
explorers and analysts of Peircean semiosis - then, I think such an opinion is
made clear by the liberal use of such phrases as 'in my view', in my opinion,
in my analysis'...rather than assertions YOU are
Edwina, List:
I try to be careful to use appropriate disclaimers when I am expressing a
subjective opinion, but the issue here is an objective fact--in CP 6.24-25,
Peirce explicitly defines idealism as the view that the psychical law is
primordial, while the physical law is derived and special,
Jon, list
With regard to the reality/fact, that we are BOTH reasonably intelligent
explorers and analysts of Peircean semiosis - then, I think such an opinion is
made clear by the liberal use of such phrases as 'in my view', in my opinion,
in my analysis'...rather than assertions YOU are
14 matches
Mail list logo
