Thanks, Edwina, this is very helpful. I appreciate how much
you were able to gather.
Thanks, again, Mike.
On 9/16/2016 7:34 PM, Edwina Taborsky
wrote:
Mike - there are multiple sites...and
it's spread throughout his
Mike - there are multiple sites...and it's spread throughout his work. Let's
see...
6.13 and on, where he talks about the three theories of evolution - and rejects
pure randomness. See also 6.33 - where he discusses randomness moving into
'taking of habits'
In 6.57 and on, he discusses
Hi Edwina,
On 9/16/2016 6:28 PM, Edwina Taborsky
wrote:
Harold, list: Thanks for your comments.
I think one has to, as I said, first
define the term 'God'. If by that term, one means a universal
Harold, list: Thanks for your comments.
I think one has to, as I said, first define the term 'God'. If by that term,
one means a universal Reason or Mind, then, I acknowledge its reality, and
always have. One has only to, as Peirce said, consider the intricate forms and
interactions of
The existence of God amuses me. What about the nature of god. This was
radically changed by Jesus who did not appear to accept him as a tribal
deity, or the explicit ruler of history in an interventionist mode. etc. I
have always assumed Peirce had a mystical experience in a church not far
from
Jeffrey- thanks for the diagrams - very interesting. I have two comments at
the moment.
1) I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because it
suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality. I don't think
that the semiosic triad functions in a linear
My previous message, attached below, didn't get to the Peirce list but only
apparently to Ben Novak and Jerry Rhee. The latest exchange, especially
attacking Edwina for her personal beliefs about the EXISTENCE of God, i.e., the
minority view of that small segment of the inhabitants of the 7th
Hi Jon S, List,
You say, "I find it fascinating, and perhaps relevant in this context, that
Peirce appealed to his readers' "instinct for that which is rational" in an
effort to make up for his inability to lay out his theory of logic 'in a
thoroughly satisfactory manner.'"
And then, a
Hi Gary F., Terry, List,
Here are three diagrams I am using to explore the relations of determination
between signs, objects and interpretants in the 10-fold classification (circa
1903 in the "Nomenclature and Division of Triadic Relations, So far as They are
Determined").
The small roman
List:
As just mentioned in my reply to Gary F., in case anyone missed it, here is
what I posted a few days ago about the drafts of "A Neglected Argument."
To what was Peirce specifically referring as "a theory of the nature of
thinking" or "this theory of thinking"? These were both unusual
Gary F., List:
GF: My responses to your four questions and the rest of your post are
inserted into it below.
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback.
GF: It could be those, but it’s also possible that the reference is not
that specific; Peirce might even be referring to Pragmatism, or to his
Jon,
My responses to your four questions and the rest of your post are inserted into
it below.
Gary f.
From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com]
Sent: 8-Sep-16 21:40
List:
Returning to the four questions in my post that started this thread …
1. To what
Dear Charles,
Myecologist Paul Stamets describes ways trees and other plants have
communication through fungal networks. They provide something like a neural
net would for a brain.
Perhaps one could say that trees have a "brain" without needing a
brain. And that humans, despite having
Of course trees and the biological organisms [and physico-chemical realm]
communicate with each other; and can learn and can store and transmit
information. They are, after all, operating within the triadic Sign and within
the three Categories.
The notion of "Mind' and its operation in ALL
CORRECTED:
I think the underlying question is whether matter is all there is to
anything. I think there is more than matter. So while I have no idea how
far your idea goes--trees are after all unable to move any distance and so
forth. But As a general proposition it seems to me probable that we
I think the underlying question if whether matter is all there is to
anything. I think there is more than matter. So while I have no idea how
far your idea goes--trees are after all unable to move any distance and so
forth. But As a general proposition it seems to me probable that we cannot
see
There's increasing evidence to show that trees are able to communicate with
each other. More than that, trees can learn.
If that's true — and my experience as a forester convinces me it is — then they
must be able to store and transmit information.
And scientists are beginning to ask: is it
17 matches
Mail list logo
