Test • Please Ignore
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
with no subject, and
Gary F., Jon A., List:
Coincidentally, Peirce wrote a somewhat similar passage thirty years later,
in the manuscript whose complete transcription I distributed over the
weekend.
CSP: [E]very general sign, even a "term," involves, at least, a
rudimentary assertion. For what is a "term," or
Edwina, Auke, List:
As I have made clear in multiple previous posts, I do not consider the
emotional/energetic/logical interpretants to be the same as the
immediate/dynamical/final interpretants. On the contrary, in my view these
two trichotomies are orthogonal to each
Gary F., Gary R., List:
GF: This approach seems to be supported by Peirce’s remark that “I perform
an abduction when I so much as express in a sentence anything I see,” that
“Not the smallest advance can be made in knowledge beyond the stage of
vacant staring, without making an abduction at
Gary, List,
I spent the morning sending out a better copy of my last post,
but every now and then some perverse gremlin along the way takes
exception to unicodes and turns them all to question marks, and it
seems the Peirce List software did not cotton to the result at all,
so here's a link to
Jon A, list,
I was curious about what was omitted by the ellipses in your quotation from
Peirce’s Lowell Lecture VII of 1866, and when I turned back a page for the
context, decided it might be worthwhile to post the whole passage from
W1:465-67 without omissions. For two or three reasons …
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}With regard to this particular sentence of JAS:
"Every sign has a conditionally necessary (final) interpretant, and
thus a possible (immediate) interpretant, even if it never has an
actual (dynamical)
Edwina, Auke, Jon Alan, List ...
Just to remind folks of two very old and ever recurring themes:
1. Peirce's locus pragmaticus on the transformation from talking about
interpretive agents, whether individuals or communities, and whether
animal, vegetable, or mineral, to talking about
Jon Alen,
I don't fight your: Moreover, my point continues to be that it is not necessary
for something to be actually perceived in order to qualify as a sign.
I saw those quotes, but I know the scope of the pragmatism article which is the
meaning of intellectual concepts and a quasi mind is
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
think there's a confusion here between an Interpretant and an
Interpreter.
The Interpretant is a basic component of the Sign triad which is, as
we know, irreducible. [O-R-I]. There is no additional need for an
Gary R,
I think yours is a very astute and context-sensitive way of communicating the
idea abduction/retroduction. To a logician, I guess it would make “abduction” a
“looser” or more vague term than “retroduction”. Or we might say that abduction
is more preconscious than retroduction. This
Supplement: At the end of my post I meant "utilitarist maxim", not "universalist maxim".
Jerry, List,
I am sure, that waiting for the action of others does not mean not doing and thinking anything while waiting. The professor is talking to young students, so he puts the esteem on them,
Jerry, List,
I am sure, that waiting for the action of others does not mean not doing and thinking anything while waiting. The professor is talking to young students, so he puts the esteem on them, but he does not superestimate them over his own age group.
An esthetical or ethical sign has
13 matches
Mail list logo
