Dear JAS, list,
Thank you for all your work in collating.
*Now let us turn to the phaneron and see what we find in fact. (CP 1.299)*
With best wishes,
Jerry R
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:38 PM Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> List:
>
> Speculating is easy and sometimes even fun, but I suggest
List:
Speculating is easy and sometimes even fun, but I suggest that the best way
to ascertain what Peirce means by "predestinate" is carefully studying how
else he uses the word and its close cognates in his writings (all bold
added).
CSP: Because the only purpose of inquiry is the settlement
Robert, List:
I apologize for the apparent lack of clarity in my posts. In this one, I
will try to limit myself to addressing your two specific requests as
directly as I can.
I have no objection whatsoever to the hexad sequence Od → Oi → S → Id →
Ie → Iex where Od = dynamoid object, Oi =
Jerry C., List:
JLRC: I find the notion of “of an incomplete proposition” to be novel. Do
you happen to recall the origin of it?
I believe that it is a well-known and uncontroversial aspect of Peirce's
thought. For example ...
CSP: In the first place, I say that every relationship concerns
“Let us acknowledge, then, that we have no preamble. ..
for the statement that is to follow the prelude is one of no small
importance, and it makes no difference whether these statements are
distinctly or indistinctly remembered.”~ *Laws*, 723c
I hope that helps.
With best wishes,
Dear Cecile, Helmut, Michael, Robert, Edwina, list,
Hence, this is why I do not believe it.
With best wishes,
Jerry R
Helmut said:
do I understand it correctly, that the paradoxon here is, that the final
interpretant is the first element in logical order, but the last in
temporal order?
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jerry- you are moving into Alice in Wonderland territory: Why is a
raven like a writing desk?
And remember, the White Queen in Alive Through the Looking Glass
could remember future events before they even
Dear Edwina, list,
Isn’t the *a priori* before the opinion, whether predestinate or destinate?
So we could even decide whether we intend the *a priori* as necessary when
we refer to predestinate opinion.
Best,
Jerry R
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:14 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Jerry -
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jerry - surely you are joking with me!
How can there be such a 'thing' as a predestinate opinion??? Is
there any 'thing' whether material or cognitive (an opinion) that is
'predestinate', ie, is there any
Supplement: But I have understood, that this is the categorial sequence order, and the determination order is different, and starts wit Od.
Robert,
I am not a Peirce-expert. I have thought to have understood, that it is (3.3.), thirdness of thirdness, and the same as normal
Jon Alan, Gary F., List
I agree for only one place for "destinate" but none for "predestinate" ,
otherwise I'm sure you would have found it and brandished it like a trophy
...
Now I have to admit that I can't figure out what you say is clear so much
you're making little effort in the
Robert,
I am not a Peirce-expert. I have thought to have understood, that it is (3.3.), thirdness of thirdness, and the same as normal interpretant. The hexadic sign is {(1.), (2.1.), (2.2.), (3.1.), (3.2.), (3.3.)}, or (S, Oi, Od, Ii, Id, If), is it? If what I wrote is correct, I find it
Edwina, list,
Thank you for your response.
To make the matter more clear, perhaps you can tell me whether your
attitude toward predestinate opinion is positive or negative.
For if the predestinate opinion is bad, then surely I ought not believe in
it.
If it is good, I ought to believe
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jerry - good point. I suppose the 'pre' somehow moves the situation
out of an 'actuallity' and into some kind of amorphous pre-actuality.
To say 'destinate' implies, possibly, an actual agent making the
decision
Helmut,
you are very close to what I say... however, I would like to know where you
place this final interpretant in the hexadic sign...
Best
Robert
Le mar. 19 mai 2020 à 17:08, Helmut Raulien a écrit :
> Edwina, List,
>
> I think, that "final" in "final interpretant" is not meant like
Dear Edwina, list,
What is the significance of ‘pre-‘ in ‘predestinate opinion’?
I’ve noticed not only you but others also, make this subtle move,
as if there is no significance- that it can be explained away as a habitual
hiccup.
I mean, is it like the difference between presupposition
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon - yes, if I understand you correctly - then, yes, semiosis
generates regulative principles but as to whether these are
'abductive hopes' - hmm. I agree with the 'abductive' - but- does the
Universe actually 'hope'? I
Edwina, All ...
In the many, many discussions we've had along these lines over the last couple of decades I think it's most commonly
been understood that such convergence theses amount to regulative principles, in effect falling into the category of
abductive hopes.
Regards,
Jon
On
Helmut, list
1] I will not get into any political commentary on this list.
2] If we can stick to Peirce - the phrase of 'in the future' is
definitely NOT a synonym for 'predestined'.
And Peirce's outline of the Final Interpretant is '"that which
would be
Edwina, List,
I think, that "final" in "final interpretant" is not meant like "in the future" or predestined, but just, that to everything could exist a unique, unambiguous representation of its momentary state and being. If a thing is blurred or ambiguous, this vagueness or ambiguity would be
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
I don't think that Peircean semiosis is just about 'interpretation'
in the sense of human language or communication; i.e., where A-Person
interprets [truthfully] what B-Person said or wrote. I don't
Helmut, I think what you say here is just about right:
HR: The truth works as a motive, a quest for it, although it is not yet
achieved. People (animals, organisms, molecules?) have a feeling, intuition,
instinct, internalised law or axiom, that everything has or would have a true
Original Message
Subject: Re: [Peirce-L] To put an
end to the false debate on the classification of signs
From:
"John F. Sowa"
Date:Tue, May
19, 2020 10:05
To: "Peirce-L"
Robert M, Gary F, Jon AS,
List
For
Robert M, Gary F, Jon AS, List
For quotations by Peirce on
these issues, see the attached file, science.txt.
Also note the last
quotation by Edward Moore:
ECM> Peirce has left us, not any kind
of final word, but a work in progress, one eminently worth carrying on, in
the spirit of the one who
Robert, Gary F, list - with regard to concerns about the concept of
a 'predestination' identity of something, i.e., the notion of a
'final truth' about this 'thing' - I question whether such an agenda
is the 'nature of Peircean semiosis'.
Whether one assumes that truth is a
Robert, I asked my question because you wrote:
RM: Because this quote troubles me a little: "In that second part, I call
"truth" the predestinate opinion,17 by which I ought to have meant that which
would ultimately prevail if investigation were carried sufficiently far in that
particular
List, Jon:
Thank you for your comments, which I found to be curious.
The curiosity response arises from a CSP text that made a lot of sense to me
from a grammatical perspective, a scientific (chemical causality) perspective
and a philosophical perspective. I am referring to MS 229 from
Jerry and Jon,
In mathematics -- including mathematical logic -- the
notation is absolutely precise. Two different notations that are
isomorphic (one-to-one mappings in both directions) have identical
semantics, independent of any words used to describe them.
JLRC> I suggest that CSP was
28 matches
Mail list logo
