Mike, Edwina, Jon, list,
Mike wrote: "Let's consider the entire world of Peirce aficionados, past
and present. There is a reason both of you [Edwina and Jon S] study and
feel so passionately about Peirce. I humbly suggest that intersection of
interests is a more practical domain of inquiry than
Hi Edwina, Jon,
I have changed the subject line. It would not bother me if
this is the only item on the thread.
Somehow, again, you two go hammer-and-tongs at one another.
Edwina, you know as well as any of us how closely Peirce tied
semiosis to
Edwina, List:
As I have noted before when making this substitution, Peirce defined logic
(in the broad sense) *as *semeiotic and beliefs *as *habits. The subject
matter of normative science consists of the relations of phenomena to ends,
and the *ideal *end of semiosis is the development of
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, List-
With regard to the statement by Jon:
"My long-term objective in all of this remains to understand how
semeiotic may be defined as the science of the laws of the stable
establishment of habits
List:
Gary R. and I had an off-List exchange yesterday, and we both wished
afterwards that portions of it had been on-List. See below for the edited
version.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
Jeff, list,
This message isn't directly about the subject of this thread, but I did
take a pretty close look at some of the 1908 manuscripts you'd transcribed
and recently linked to https://fromthepage.com/jeffdo
wn1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-611-15 and wanted to reiterate what an
extraordinary
