List,
In an off-list note Fernando Zalamea, Philosopher and Historian of
Mathematics at the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogata wrote (omitting
just the personal part of the message):
Hi Gary,
[. . .]
Very important text that you sent to the List.
On my side, responding a little to your
Gary F, list
I think that Peirce's semiosic infrastructure is basically
non-linear and, as I've said before, as such, it operates as a
complex adaptive system.
The fact that he has three modal categories - rather than only one ,
ie, only Secondness, which would produce
Edwina, All ...
Well, y'know, these days we have
Die Hard Nominalists (DHNs) and
Dunning-Kruger Nominalists (DKNs),
the latter being too nominalist
to know they are nominalists.
I wasn't recommending any form of nominalism, only that:
“full corpus reading of Peirce's technical works placing
John S, list,
If I may, John, I would propose a modification to your Figure 4 in
http://jfsowa.com/talks/escw.pdf:
This diagram indicates, at every level, a linear process beginning with
perception and ending with action. But in living organisms (as explained in my
book and a dozen or two
Robert, List:
I agree with that famous quote from Peirce, and it does not refute what I
said before.
For one thing, only certain signs are "elements of concepts" that "enter
into logical thought" by being perceived and thereby determining dynamical
interpretants that are *logical *interpretants
Gary F., List:
I changed the subject line only because the subject being addressed had
changed, and I am happy to resume the discussion of "Communicating an Idea."
In Peirce's late writings, he is consistently inconsistent about whether to
use "abduction" or "retroduction" when referring to the
List,
In a recent op-ed piece titled "The End of College as We Knew It" (
https://tinyurl.com/ybha8mhb), Frank Bruni reflects on something I've been
informally discussing with friends and colleagues now for years; namely,
that "A society without a grounding in ethics, self-reflection, empathy and
Edwina, List:
Realism and idealism have different definitions in different philosophical
contexts. Sometimes they are conceived as incompatible alternatives, such
that we must choose one or the other. That was obviously not what Peirce
had in mind, since he identified himself as both a realist
Cf: Sign Relations • Discussion 3
At:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/13/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-3/
Re: Sign Relations • Definition
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/01/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-definition/
Re: Ontolog Forum
Jon Alan,
I agree... It is sometimes the price to pay to keep the coherence of our
formal constructions and personally I assume them totally ... and I think
that you will notice if I deviate too much from it; and I will take it
into account ... that's how I understand the mind of the
Dear Jon Alan,
JAS > "Something need not be perceived in order to qualify as a sign, as
long as it is *capable *of determining a dynamical interpretant by virtue
of having an immediate interpretant ... and a final interpretant ..."
RM > If I were a literalist, I would say this:
"But
Jon, I understand your motive for changing the subject line, but I’ve changed
it back because I’d like to return to the subject of “Communicating an Idea.”
(Common sense should tell us that any study of “certain aspects of Peirce’s
thought” will include some aspects (or “objects”) and exclude
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list.
Names matter only if they have a different meaning.
Conceptualism/nominalism is not a red herring but an analysis that is
removed from objective reality and rests only in the concept; ie, it
is a pure
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon,list
Yes, I do think you are right to make such a differentiation. Names
don't matter...
But I think that any 'corpus literalism' whether early or late, runs
the risk of moving into
Edwina, Robert, Peirce List ...
I think we have to distinguish “late corpus literalism” —
I'll let that go till I find a better name for it — from
“full corpus reading of Peirce's technical works placing
them in the context of mathematical developments, indeed
revolutions, already proceeding
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Robert, list - yes, you are right. Such a 'corset' approach of
purity, rejecting new areas of the Peircean framework, would indeed
be a denial of the spirit of Peirce's work. It would transform it
from being a framework
Jon, List
Jon I suppose that in this search for coherence in "certain aspects of
Peirce's thought" you do not rule out using mathematical objects which are
appeared in ulterior development of this discipline that was not at his
disposal more than 100 years ago? Otherwise, wouldn't the pure
17 matches
Mail list logo
