Jon Alan Schmidt quoted Gary Fuhrman and then wrote:
GF: Maybe I’m just not equipped to think like a mathematician about
semiosis.
JAS: And maybe--even probably--I am just not equipped to think like a
special (physical or psychical) scientist about semeiosis. Inquiry
benefits from both
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS - I think you've missed my point.
I wasn't critiquing 'consistent terminology' or the three-step
method of developing hypotheses. And I certainly don't see textual
references as an inductive method of
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - I think there are two issues here. We can see that the
meaning of the Peircean terms remains debatable - since there is no
'full agreement' on the meaning of the terms. I don't know if there
will ever be a final
Jon Alan Schmidt concluded:
We have to distinguish the quality *in itself* as a real possibility (1ns)
from both its inherence in something that exists (2ns) and our physical
sensation of it (also 2ns), as well as our perceptual judgments about it
(3ns) and any subsequent reasoning about it (also
Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
In my view--and evidently Peirce's, as well (CP 2.219-226, EP 2:263-366,
1903)--consistent terminology fosters greater clarity, especially when
comparing results from different fields that "are talking about the same
[or similar] processes." [And we can and should]
John, Auke, List:
I agree that the conclusions of semeiotic are "eminently fallible," as
Peirce himself described them. That is why we are not locked into
treating *his
*speculative grammar as rigid dogma but are free to make adjustments that
we deem appropriate in accordance with the results of
Edwina, List:
As with any scientific inquiry, in speculative grammar we employ
retroduction to formulate hypotheses, deduction to explicate them, and
induction to evaluate them. I admittedly tend to concentrate mainly on the
first two steps, but still proceed to the third one at times; e.g., to
Gary F., List:
GF: I simply find myself unable to come up with an individual experience
that could be referred to as a “sign token” and has no context.
Indeed, all our individual *experiences *with individual sign tokens have
real contexts. Speculative grammar *abstracts *from those different
John, Edwina, list,
looking at the subject line:
I did introduce the nonagons in my reply to Jon Alan because I think that
besides discussing theory with the help of examples, in order to stay grounded,
it is needed to look from what perspective and with what interest we discuss
the
Edwina, Gary F, Jon AS,
ET> My question about
'pure theorizing' so to speak, also arises from the quote below: "Now
the whole process of development among the community of students of
those formulations by abstractive observation and reasoning of the
truths which must hold good of
all signs
List
My question about 'pure theorizing' so to speak, also arises from
the quote below:
"Now the whole process of development among the community of
students of those formulations by abstractive observation and
reasoning of the truths which must hold good of all
I prefer "brûler ses vaisseaux" (Agathode of Syracuse landing in Africa)
Le sam. 2 mai 2020 à 14:17, Jon Awbrey a écrit :
> Ha! whether I'm a cuckoo or an egg, and which came first,
> only time will tell, but at least now you can truly say,
> “Après moi, le déluge!”
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> On
Ha! whether I'm a cuckoo or an egg, and which came first,
only time will tell, but at least now you can truly say,
“Après moi, le déluge!”
Regards,
Jon
On 5/1/2020 1:35 PM, robert marty wrote:
Thank you Jon, you're a providence. The flow is fed by so many different
sources that it becomes
Jon, I see where you’re coming from. But when it comes to the practice of
theorizing, the Peirce advice that has most leverage on me is this: “every kind
of proposition is either meaningless or has a real Secondness as its object.
This is a fact that every reader of philosophy should constantly
Jon Alan,
Novel phenomena give rise to a situation of doubt because there is no habit
associated with that phenomenon. I want to have the posibility to talk about
the formation of new habits. Only allowing habit change is too limited.
JAS: I am again having trouble making sense of the rest of
15 matches
Mail list logo
