Dear Robert, Bernard, List,
Peirce's classifications in R 1345 is complementary to his more widely
accepted classification in 1903. Many Peirce scholars have considered the
1903 version as a better developed version that replaces 1345. i admit
that I had also accepted that conclusion.
Cf: Theme One Program • Motivation 4
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2018/05/20/theme-one-program-motivation-4/
All,
From Zipf’s Law and the category of “things that vary inversely to frequency”
I got my first brush with the idea that keeping track of usage frequencies
is part and parcel of
Jon, Bernard, List,
Two other Classification of Sciences from the MS 1345;
*FIRST :*
MS1345_004
Part 3. *Encyclopaedia*
The first year I would propose to point my masterly Syllabus of Science of
which I have given a table of contents.
*Contents of Syllabus of Science.*
Dividing all science
Today I was reminded by Ben Udell, the co-manager of Peirce-L, that there
were times when Joe Ransdell would suggest a limit on messages sent per
day. Because of the flood of messages posted to the List (many regarding
the current controversies) we think that it's time to make that suggestion
I second Gary's and Jon's comment and would like to use it as an
opportunity to further scholarship on the connections between the work of
Karl Popper and CSP.
Popper introduced what is now called the Three-Worlds Hypothesis. It is a
heuristic advising people to carefully reflect on the initial
JAS,
Just a factual remark:
When I wrote the two passages that you are quoting below, I was
addressing the slides from André as well as the comments for their
defense on the list.
I was not adressing CSP proper work at all.
So you have misread me.
Regards
BM
Le 17/10/2021 à 23:08, Jon
List,
It behooves us to stop accusing people of being literalists as if it is
*their* problem that they are literalists.
Today, there is a wind blowing through the Academy demanding that all of us
become literalists when we encounter digital models of the human mind,
creating an unhealthy
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
What does 'obvious discrepancies' mean??? The use of different
terms?
If someone is using the triadic sign, as, eg, Hoffmeyer did, in
analyzing what is going on within the 'habits of
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS
But how can YOU be sure that YOUR reading of Peirce is correct?
Never mind the Final Interpretant, which isn't the issue here. I'm
talking about the Immediate and Dynamic Interpretants - and how can
you be
Claudio - I am equal to anyone else, and therefore, am as 'equipped'
[whatever does that mean?] to handle further exploration of Peirce's
work in the 21st century. What I expect from the List is that when I
post something that does such exploration, I would be met with: 'Yes,
that's an
Edwina, List:
It has nothing to do with whether Peirce ever used his own analytic
framework in a certain way. My basic question is, how do we ascertain
whether a particular analytic framework that someone is using to examine
the actual world is really *THE* Peircean analytic framework--i.e.,
Edwina, List:
As I already explained below, I can never be absolutely certain that my (or
anyone else's) understanding of Peirce's writings matches their *final
*interpretant,
but I can ascertain when someone else's expressed understanding of them is
inconsistent with their *immediate*
List, this time my post does address the matter of the subject line. I hope no
one will object to using the Peircean (and post-Peircean) semiotic framework to
explain how attention to context, or lack of it, can affect communication among
people like ourselves: Turning Signs 15: Context and
John, List:
JFS: But by placing normative science after phaneroscopy, he was unable to
use normative principles for evaluating interpretations and relations among
them.
It seems to me that this was quite intentional on Peirce's part.
CSP: Philosophy has three grand divisions. The first is
List,
Of course, we are post-Peirceans! How could we be pre-Peirceans or even
just Peirceans...!!!
this pretentious behavior, the gratuitous aggression and the silence of
others is the reason way I left writing to the List some years ago
"Some *'literalists' *think we should leave the forest as
JAS, list
Your original reply focused, yet again, on The Text, and seemed to
insist on a focus only on text-to-text outlines, ie, where someone
'explains' to us what Peirce 'really meant' in his texts.
But I'd still appreciate your thoughts on my basic question -
Gary F, list
The reason people take it as an insult is because, on this list, it
is used as an insult. It is used - and you use it - to define a post
and poster as deviating from The Words and Meaning of Peirce and
putting in their own meaning - which is understood as almost
Jon:
This post is so muddled that I gave up on a meaningful scientific
interpretation of it.
Cheers
Jerry
> On Oct 17, 2021, at 7:00 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> Cf: Theme One Program • Motivation 1
> https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2018/05/15/theme-one-program-motivation-1/
>
> All,
>
> The
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I'd disagree; you do claim to be defining The Peircean analytic
framework. Otherwise, how could you justify your comments criticizing
others? You don't apply it, admittedly, for you have openly said
Jon, List,
I am post-Peircean myself, and so is my book. I find it hard to understand why
anyone takes that adjective as an insult, whether to themselves or to their
theories, unless they are looking for something to take as an insult and an
excuse to vent their animosity. My original point
Cf: Theme One Program • Motivation 3
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2018/05/19/theme-one-program-motivation-3/
All,
Sometime around 1970 John B. Eulenberg came from Stanford to
direct Michigan State’s Artificial Language Lab, where I would come
to spend many interesting hours hanging out all
Robert, Gary, List,
do you know the collaboration of Claude Lévi-Strauss with the mathematician
André Weil about the kinship system of the Murngins ?
Hi Robert,
I know of it - yet to read it, though. Sounds quite interesting. I take your
point re the hierarchy being a mental value, and quite
22 matches
Mail list logo
