Re: Chirality (was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4)

Jerry, Your discussion and references about chirality are convincing. But they go beyond issues that Peirce would have known in his day. I think that he was using issues about chirality as examples for making a stronger claim: For example, in his lecture on phenomenology, (EP2, 159), ends with

Chirality (was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4)

List, John: The issue of chirality is a critical issue in scientific philosophy. The logic of chirality is vastly more perplex than the simple logic of mathematics or physics because it is necessary to invoke the logic of multiple scientific symbol systems in a coherent manner such that the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

Dear list, A human being may well ask the animal: ‘Why do you not speak to me of your happiness but only stand and gaze at me.’ The animal would like to answer, and say: ‘The reason is I always forget what I was going to say’— but then he forgot this answer too, and stayed silent. It

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

Jeff, list, That's an interesting question - for my part, I don't see that Peirce's explanations of the alpha or beta parts of EG in the Lowell Lectures tell us much about what's necessary "to arrive at conclusions about what is observable under different kinds of possible tests." But maybe

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

On 12/17/2017 3:24 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: Now, do you think that there is chirality also in other contexts than molecules, e.g. in signs? To illustrate that issue, consider the analogs in 2 dimensions and 3 dimensions. For example, any circle on a plane can be made congruent with any other

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

List: > On Dec 18, 2017, at 7:58 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > For this list of categories differs from the lists of Aristotle, Kant, and > Hegel in attempting much more than they. They merely took conceptions which > they found at hand, already worked out.