Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)

Jon Alen, I do not see from your quote of Edwina that she states that the logical and the final interpretant are the same. And just repeating quotes does not solve interprative difficulties. best, Auke > Op 16 juni 2020 om 19:32 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt : > > Auke, List: > > >

[PEIRCE-L] Paraconsistent Newsletter - Spring 2020

The coronavirus free spring 2020 edition of the paraconsistent newsletter is ready with - the latest papers, books, events, videos of interest for paraconsistentists - a fuzzy interview with Didier Dubois http://www.paraconsistency.org/2020spring Enjoy ! JYB _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscrib

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)

Terry,  That's a good way to explain the issues -- especially because you and Peirce illustrate your interpretations with concrete examples.  A definition or discussion of  any new term must have one or more examples to show (1) that the term is not vacuous, and (2) the kinds of features or cha

[PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } List I understand the logical interpretant [LI] as functioning within the mode of Thirdness, which enables its generalized content to engage in 'habit-changes' [see1907, Pragmatism, 5.475] ..and thus, function i

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Sign Relations

Cf: Sign Relations • Examples At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/16/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-examples/ Because the examples to follow have been artificially constructed to be as simple as possible, their detailed elaboration can run the risk of trivializing the whole theory of sign relati

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)

Robert, List: RM: Such an "unreal" sign cannot determine anything real since it is not determined. How could he determine a final interpreter as a change of habit if anyone's habits are not affected by his incarnation in the real world, and therefore by the prior perception of an updated sign?

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)

Auke, List: JAS: 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. AvB: I never suggested that I do consider them the same and did not notice somebody else doing so in o

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Communicating an Idea (was Interpreter-Interpretant and Possible-Actual)

Gary F., List: It is interesting that you see this paragraph as anticipating what Peirce would later call phenomenology or phaneroscopy. I believe that you are correct, although he clearly did not yet recognize any such distinction himself; in fact, he went on to state that "Philosophy, in the se

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Robert, John, list I very much like the concept of the representamen referring to the 'universe of possibilities' [which I refer to in my own work as non-local semiosic processes] - while the 'sign' refers to the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Communicating An Idea

Gary F., List: That is a valid point, consistent with my hypothesis that despite preferring "retroduction," Peirce uses "abduction" in 1901-1906 because his audiences were likely to be at least somewhat familiar with that term as the usual and traditional English translation of Aristotle's *ἀπαγωγ

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)

Robert, That's an excellent summary of the issues.  For my comments, I divided it in three parts: > The representamen should therefore be rehabilitated in order to confine it to the universe of possibilities andthe term sign should be reserved to the incarnate form. This is the reason why in m

[PEIRCE-L] KBpedia, KKO, and CSP

List, I am pleased to announce that we have released KBpedia v 2.50 with e-commerce and logistics capabilities, as well as significant other refinements. This upgrade comes from adding the entire top structure and the most common products and services of the United Natio

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Communicating an Idea (was Interpreter-Interpretant and Possible-Actual)

Jon AS, list, What caught my attention so far in your transcript of R787 was this paragraph, which comes just before the one I’d quoted earlier from NEM 4:ix: [[ There are, however, observations which are not only open to all men; but which are necessarily open to all intelligences capable of a

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Communicating An Idea

Jon AS, Thanks as always for tracing out the full history of Peirce’s own usage of the two terms. I too have treated them as synonymous in Turning Signs, and I don’t think Gary R was suggesting otherwise — just that the different terms are somewhat different in their suitability for communicati

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Sign Relations

Cf: Sign Relations • Discussion 5 At: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/16/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-5/ Re: Sign Relations • Discussion 4 At: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/06/15/sign-relations-%e2%80%a2-discussion-4/ The transformative idea here is not the convertibility of

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Communicating an Idea (was Interpreter-Interpretant and Possible-Actual)

Jon Alan, List ... As often happens, I find his first tries clearer and more to the point. The point I found of interest here was not the interconvertibility of term logic, propositional calculus, and monadic predicate logic — which has been a commonplace of logic since Aristotle, if not in those

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)

Jon Alan, List We are at this point at the heart of our differences. That a sign cannot have a transmitter or interpreter is of great banality. Just consider the tides, the many pareidolia [1] <#_ftn1> for the former and for the latter think about the possible effects of global warming that no on

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Way of Thinking (was Theory and Analysis of Semeiosis)

Jon Alen, Just to avoid misunderstanding. JAS: 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. I never suggested that I do consider them the same and did not notice