List:
I have posted several different summaries recently of my current (still
tentative) understanding of Signs and their relations, which hinges on
carefully and consistently differentiating a *Sign* from its embodiment in
a *Replica*, and both of these from an *Instance* of the Sign as a
Dear Jerry C, list,
perhaps I am..
which reminds me.. peirce's esthetics, beautiful and unbeautiful.
Best,
Jerry R
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote:
> Jerry R:
>
> In response to your query, I have no idea.
>
> Even the notion of any two
Jerry R:
In response to your query, I have no idea.
Even the notion of any two humans having the “same ego” is foreign to my way of
thinking.
Perhaps you are thinking of a superficial similarity of styles of expression?
Cheers
Jerry C.
> On Sep 17, 2018, at 3:15 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
>
List:
> On Sep 13, 2018, at 10:33 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> But
> everything that is imaginable can be described by some theory
> of pure mathematics.
How can one describe a “feeling” in pure mathematical terms?
I will answer my own question.
Simply quote W.O Quine:
“To be is to be a
John:
The origin of the six “bullets” listed below is unclear.
Are these your personal evaluations of CSP texts?
I ask because it appears to me that # 2 is simply false.
The chemical alphabet is finite.
Cheers
Jerry
>
> On Thu 13/09/18 10:03 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net
>
Dear Jerry, list,
What does Peirce mean by
“entertain a metaphysical theory that they are all *hypostatically the same
ego*”?
Does he mean me and you? Jon and Gary? Edwina and kirsti? John and
Jeff?
Thanks,
Jerry
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 1:51 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
John:
> On Sep 15, 2018, at 5:28 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> To avoid the controversy, I'll delete the phrase "partial and narrow"
> and replace it with a line that says normative logic is the "theory
> of self-controlled or deliberate thought".
>
Hmmm…
Does this really help?
How does a
