choice of terminology
> and style of writing. He can no longer change his texts, but we can improve
> the way we teach, talk, and write about his theories. And choice of
> terminology is a good part of that process.
>
> John
>
>
> From: "Edwina Taborsk
because they already have a sense of what
> it means, but in fact they do not have in mind "Objects which are Signs so
> far as they are merely possible, but felt to be positively possible" (CP
> 8.363, EP 2:488, 1908 Dec 25).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt
s
> ideas into practical applications. I'm sure I embarrassed him with those
> accolades as he has never so much as hinted at his accomplishments in
> structural engineering on the List.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 7:29 AM Edwina Tabor
by the way, my citation of Fisch is NOT an appeal to authority. It is
> the practice of taking the advice of an expert in a field for choosing
> terminology for that field. I recommend that practice.
>
> John
>
>
> From: "Edwina Taborsky"
>
> Gary R, L
with the specifically Peircean ones, some papers in which Peircean thought is
> applied in various ways, including engineering reasoning and ethics.
> https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=EfQhY7cJ=en
>
> Best,
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 10:38 AM
t 9:32 AM, Edwina Taborsky
> wrote:
>
> Robert- I agree with you about examining how the ‘relations of embodiment’ of
> the triadic sign actually function - but this recent debate - and it’s a
> debate not a discussion’[ i.e., it’s focused on Who Wins ]- rejects a more
&
Robert- I agree with you about examining how the ‘relations of embodiment’ of
the triadic sign actually function - but this recent debate - and it’s a debate
not a discussion’[ i.e., it’s focused on Who Wins ]- rejects a more basic
requirement of analysis; namely - what is the operative
Dear Edwinia, List
>
>> On Apr 7, 2024, at 1:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky
>> wrote:
>>
>> And I also am a strong supporter of Peirce’s three categories, with the
>> interplay between Firstnerss [ randomnness, chance, freedom]; steady-state
>> interac
Michale
Thank you for this excellent post. You are exactly right
Peirce's agapastic semiosis is a dynamic and generative process- and it
explains not merely the increasing complexity of the physicochemical and
biological realms [which are, indeed, complex adaptive systems,] but also,
categorical
> sign), or as real relations (for a relative sign).
9] ET: My discussion has primarily been around your positioning of the Final
Interpretant before the Dynamic and Immediate Interpretants - In my post of
today, I outlined what I consider to be the function of the FI - and
ssing with his Delta graphs.
>
> I believe that if Peirce had not had that accident in December 1911, he would
> have written an outstanding proof of pragmatism with the help of his Delta
> graphs and the methods he developed in the years after 1903.
>
> John
>
>
>
ng primarily feeling] and therefore -
can’t provide enough information to the next experience [ the Dynamic
Interpretant]..to enable it to function within the clarity of Secondness.
So- we’ll have to as usual, continue to disagree.
Edwina
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Ola
List
I am aware that JAS’s use of ‘determines’ is not synonymous with ‘causes’ or
‘precedes’ - but is ‘logically constrains’. However, something that ‘logically
constrains’ DOES, functionally operate as causal and precedent to other forces-
otherwise - how would it function as that
List
I think it’s almost useless to discuss these issues, since I’m aware that JAS
has his set of beliefs about the Peircean framework - and I [ and others] -
have our own beliefs - which may or may not, align with his.
But just a few points:
1] JAS quote Peirce: “ No matter what his opinion
This is a discussion we’ve had with JAS before - and I agree with Dr. Jappy
[TJ]. .
I agree with his view of semiosis as ’thought in action’ . My own view of
Peircean semiosis is that it outlines an active, adaptive, evolving process of
mind-as-matter formation; ie, an agapastic process.
This
John
It seems to me that an emphasis on ’semantics rather than syntax’ sets up an
analytic frame focusing only on entities operating within a mode of Secondness
- and ignoring the mode of Thirdness operating in syntax..
Edwina
> On Mar 11, 2024, at 3:27 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> In my
I did not say that the Hopi way of taking about time is objectionable. I said
that I consider it incorrect to consider that because the Hopi view time in a
particular manner and have words for this view, that this does not mean that
they would not understand the SAE way of thinking about time.
Thirdness by any living being could be called intentional if a
> human did it. Can anybody find an example of Thirdness in any of Peirce's
> writings that could not be considered intentional if it had been performed by
> a human?
>
> John
>
>
> From: "Edwina T
John, list
I’m not a fan of the Whorf-Sapir sociolinguistics hypotheses…Objective reality
exists, regardless of how we talk about it - and I maintain that its influence
can be far stronger than words ie - Secondness has its own way of intruding on
our words. And mathematics has nothing to do
List
I agree with Mike. Thirdness, in my view, does not imply or require
intentionality. That, after all, suggests some kind of consciousness - and I
think we find Thirdness in chemical and physical matter - and these forms of
matter do not include consciousness.
I have a problem with the
(information) entropy. It
> strikes me that recasting these in terms of Peircean Secondness (energy) and
> Thirdness (information) brings sense to the conundrum. Both apply; it is more
> a matter of contextual interpretation.
>
> What say the list?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Best, Mike
lly handle it.
>
> Best, Helmut
>
> Gesendet: Montag, 12. Februar 2024 um 03:07 Uhr
> Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
> An: "Peirce-L"
> Cc: "Edwina Taborsky"
> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing
> Semiotic Project)
> L
List- I don’t see synergism as equivalent to Thirdness, for Thirdness is the
establishment of habits, ie, habitual ‘modes of being’ - which habits are
established by and within the universe in conjunction with the modes of both
Firstness and Secondness. .
Instead, synergism, or continuity,
Mike list
I agree with your comments. Synechism is the functionality of Thirdness [the
becoming governed by laws} 5.4] - and isn’t the penultimate, because, just as
you say - the world requires the discrete and discontinuousness of ontological
Secondness [entropy] and also- the chance
List
I am unaware of anyone who "confines semiosis to the biological realm”!! Never
heard of such a thing! But, of course, there are many who confine semiosis to
the human mind realm - and many who reject the operation of semiosis within the
physicochemical realms.
As I’ve said - my point is
s
> and Proto-propositions in Biological Mimicry; J. Queiroz.- 11. Semeiosis as a
> Living Process; V. Romanini.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary Richmond
>
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 10:34 AM Edwina Taborsky <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:
>> Gary R,lis
Gary R,list
I’m a bit surprised by your request - since surely you are aware of the focus
in science of Peircean principles in the biological, physic-chemical and
artificial worlds.
A few quick examples:
Homeostasis and Information Processing: Eduardo Mizraji. Biosystems 2024
February
found important applications of
> Peirce's ideas and theories and cited them in their publications. But I have
> never seen anybody who mentioned interpretants. Can anybody find any
> published examples? By anybody for any practical purpose?
>
> That reminds me of the parody: &
vlin's article is one source, but any detailed analysis of
> language in context will turn up endless numbers of examples.
>
> John
> __
>
> From: "Edwina Taborsky" " style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 102
There’s a new four volume set of papers just published. 141 papers.
>
>
> Editor: Amir Biglari
> Title: OPEN SEMIOTICS
> Publisher: Editions L’Harmattan 2023
>
> Volume 1: Epistemological and Conceptual Foundations
> Part I; Semiotics Without Borders
> Part II: Rethinking Sign and Meaning
>
dness in one or more
> of my books, the latest being The Logic of Lasnguage (New York: Springer,
> 2022). Markedness in language is the epitomre of the relationship between
> sign and object.
> -Original Message-
> From: Edwina Taborsky mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>>
> Se
024, at 7:05 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> John, list
>
> 1] I don’t know what you mean by ‘His Commentary’…in your sentence
>> But in his important analyses of those subjects, I have not seen him show
>> how his theory of interpretants aided him in the discovery
important (or just useful)
> example of an insight in which Peirce's theory of interpretants helped
> discover that insight?
>
> John
>
>
> From: "Edwina Taborsky"
> Sent: 2/2/24 5:01 PM
> To: John F Sowa
> Cc: Peirce List , CG
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-
his writings on interpretants rest in peace (RIP), and
> focus on the great body of work that is at the forefront of the latest
> developments in cognitive science.
>
> John
>
>
> From: "Edwina Taborsky"
>
> John, list
>
> Regardless of the t
John, list
Regardless of the terminology, which I acknowledge obscures the analysis, I
think that one can conclude that Peirce’s view is that there are three
Interpretants. One is Individual Internal; the next is Individual External,
and the last one is Collective External. And- each of
Sorry- I meant Peirce’s rejection of idealism. Not simply Popper’s! [ Peirce
was an Objective Idealist - completely different from the detached-from-reality
determinism and finality of pure idealism. ]
Edwina
> On Jan 29, 2024, at 10:27 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> Helmut, list
knew Peirce, because I see
> some parallelity.
>
> Best, Helmut
>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 28. Januar 2024 um 21:33 Uhr
> Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
> An: s...@bestweb.net
> Cc: "Peirce List" , "CG"
>
> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Concluding section 7 o
John, list
Thanks for the chapter. I particularly liked your inclusion off the Peircean
quote;
Get rid, thoughtful Reader, of the Okhamistic prejudice of political
partisanship that in thought, in being, and in development the indefinite is
due to a degeneration from a primal state of
John, list
I’d add Peirce’s term of ‘pragmaticism’ - a focus on the practical consequences
of a semiosic function, ie, a process, rather than a focus on the theory.
I’d also comment that, in my view, Peircean semiosis is a function of a complex
adaptive world, where, for example, matter
s of my life
> experiences?”
>
> Do you experience “forms of consciousness”?
>
> How are the forms of personal consciousness you experience related to or
> conjoined to your memories?
>
> Thanks for considering my “off the wall” questions.
>
> Cheers
> Jerry
&
ng my “off the wall” questions.
>
> Cheers
> Jerry
>
>> On Jan 19, 2024, at 8:30 AM, Edwina Taborsky
>> wrote:
>>
>> Jerry, list
>>
>> I’m not sure of your question. I’m quoting Peirce. These terms refer to his
>> outline of
On Jan 11, 2024, at 3:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky
>> wrote:
>>
>> Peirce’s outline of these forms of consciousness [7.551] of Feeling,
>> Altersense and Medisense’ or primisense, alter sense, medisense. And, just
>> as in his outline of the modal categories, these can b
gt; (thinking, medisense).
>
> Best, Helmut
>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Januar 2024 um 18:28 Uhr
> Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
> An: "Jerry LR Chandler"
> Cc: "Peirce List"
> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Categorizations of triadic Relationships (Was Re:
.
Edwina
> On Jan 11, 2024, at 1:55 PM, Jerry LR Chandler
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Jan 11, 2024, at 11:28 AM, Edwina Taborsky
>> wrote:
>>
>> But you already know this
>
> Edwinia:
>
> If I understood the meaning of the “triadic
a suggestion for determining a feeling that can be given symbolic descriptions that can be communicated to the Other?Cheers.Jerry.Sent from my iPad On Jan 11, 2024, at 8:11 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:Jerry - listIi think you yourself know the answer - but…let’s say, the word ‘ headache’ = or any
a feeling that can be given symbolic descriptions that can be communicated to the Other?Cheers.Jerry.Sent from my iPad On Jan 11, 2024, at 8:11 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:Jerry - listIi think you yourself know the answer - but…let’s say, the word ‘ headache’ = or any sound1] If you have, within your mind
ary.org/wiki/restored>, repaid
> <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/repaid>
> (having been) reported <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reported>
> (having been) reconsidered <https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reconsidered>
>
>> On Jan 10, 2024, at 1:28 PM, Ed
List
I think the quotations provided by JAS do not change the meaning of the
quotations I provided to show that the categories are described by Peirce as
having both genuine and degenerate modes. That is, the category of Secondness
has both a genuine and degenerate mode; the category of
List
With regard to the use of the terms of ‘genuine, degenerate and doubly
degenerate’ - my understanding of these terms is that they refer only to the
categories. Not to the ’nodes’ and relations, ie, not to the two Objects or the
three Interpretants. .
For example, Peirce writes: “The Sign
nterpretant is not only the sign, but the sign and the interpreter´s mind.
> Mind, of course, includes 3ns.
>
> Gesendet: Montag, 08. Januar 2024 um 19:44 Uhr
> Von: "Helmut Raulien"
> An: "Edwina Taborsky"
> Cc: "Peirce-L" , "Edwina
why it is not always easy to exactly tell it from the
> immediate object, i guess.
>
> Best, Helmut
>
>
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 07. Januar 2024 um 19:28 Uhr
> Von: "Edwina Taborsky"
> An: "Helmut Raulien"
> Cc: "Peirce-L" , &q
Ben, list
I remember discussions on this list about that paragraph with follows the p.
271 warning in this text
“A Sign, or Representamen, is a First which stands in such a genuine triadic
relation to a Second, called its Object, as to be capable of determining a
Third, called its
Helmut - I think one has to be clear about terms. Do you mean that the
Interpretant [ which is a relation not a thing-in-itself] becomes a new triad
or only a new Representamen?
My own view is that the Interpretant, which ‘holds and moulds’ information,
contributes to the formation of both a
udes Anglophones
> Associate Professor of English as a Second Language
> Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation
>
>
> De: "Edwina Taborsky" <mailto:edwina.tabor...@gmail.com>>
> À: "Cécile Menieu-Cosculluela" <mailto:cecile.coscullu..
Cecile - I understand the reference by Peirce to a ‘quasi -sign, which is the
wider reference to the triadic process, but I think one can talk oneself into a
dead end.
The reality is, from examining the many discussions within Peirce, that the
triad, which he refers to as a Sign, [ see Letter
Cecile - yes, I think you could come to such a conclusion. That’s why I always
use ‘representamen’ to refer to the mediative process. And I capitalize the
term of Sign when I refer to the triad.
I think it’s important to recognize that the triad is functionally irreducible;
That is, the
Cécile Cosculluela
> MC anglais UPPA ∗ SSH ∗ LEA
> Maître de Conférences en Etudes Anglophones
> Associate Professor of English as a Second Language
> Semiotics • Linguistics • Grammar • Translation

>
> De: "Edwina Taborsky"
> À: "Edwina Taborsky"
up of three
correlates/relations AND - above all that the FORM of this triad is not a
closed triangle in itself…which would be utterly useless, but is an open Y
shape, enabling networking with other triadic Signs.
Edwina
> On Jan 5, 2024, at 9:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
&g
Cecile
Understandinig the Sign as a triadic relation, made up of three
correlates/relations of Object-Representamen-Interpretant, you will find a good
outline of Peirce’s analysis of this triad in 1.345-347.
As he says “genuine triadic relations can never be built of dyadic relations
and of
Apologies - in a hurry but the correct determination letters are:
DO-IO-R/S- II-DI-FI
IO- Immediate Object;
So, DO and DI are external to the sign vehicle; and IO and II are internal…..
Edwina
> On Dec 19, 2023, at 8:58 AM, Edwina Taborsky
> wrote:
>
> I have a complete
I have a completely different analysis. A short outline is all I have time
for...
My view is that the terms of ‘genuine and degenerate refer only to the
categorical modes, with Thirdness as genuine. [3-3], degenerate in the first
degree [3-2] and degenerate in the second degree [ 3-1], [ See
of. Was the triangle first popularized by Ogden in
> The Meaning of Meaning, in his presentation of Peirce’s ideas? That triangle
> has done more harm to semiotics than one can imagine.]
>
> Mary
>
>
>> On Dec 18, 2023, at 12:06 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>>
>> I pa
rtite' is not synonymous with its categorical mode]. And a
final Interpretant could, forever, function within a mode of 2ns - ie, as in a
Dicent indexical Legisign.
Whatever one personally concludes - it’s an interesting article to read.
Edwina Taborsky
> On Dec 14, 2023, at 5:00 PM, Jerry LR
Jon, list
With regard to bringing Peirce’s work to a broader audience - I can think of a
number of issues.
1] We should not assume that our audience are first year undergraduates; as you
point out - the people who are exploring Peirce may very well be much more
advanced scholars in other
John - thanks for your post.
My concern, however, is that the Peircean community, should in my view, accept
that research in other disciplines may be examining the same cognitive and
physical realities but, might be using different terms than Peirce used. That
is- their terms, as used by
John - yes, I agree with your comments.
With regard to your point 4 - that’s an excellent comment. Primarity,
Secundarity, and Tertiarity
These are much better terms for the categorical modes than Firstness,
Secondness and Thirdness. They are better descriptions of their modal nature -
a
Robert, John, ..
I fully agree with Robert’s outline of problems about the research of Peirce
within the ‘Peircean community’.
On the one hand, there exists within this community an almost self-isolating
group of self-defined Peircean scholars, who treat ‘outsiders’ as almost
’naive and
John, list
Thank you for an impressive paper and outline of diagrammatic thinking.
My question is - in your paper, do you explain how a diagram becomes [ as
operative in the categorical mode of Thirdness] a primary mediative force in
the movement from sensation [of the object] to an
Helmut, John, List
I don’t know if there is a ‘widely accepted definition of consciousness’. I am
referring to Peirce’s discussions of the term. I like his differentiation
between the immediate and mediate consciousness. Notice that he refers to BOTH
types as ‘consciousness’. That is, he
, or a basic chemical interaction - but the
more complex ones are open.
Edwina Taborsky
> On Aug 11, 2023, at 4:18 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> This thread has attracted too many responses for me to save all of them. But
> Mihai Nadin cited intriguing exp
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
think it's an excellent idea.
My own view is that another List would be beneficial, with a focus
on the use of the Peircean framework in the modern world.
As you say, it is not instead of the current
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Robert, list
That's an excellent outline of the triad and the definition of the
Representamen. and of the Intentional Interpretant and the need for
the Commens. And by the way, this section from Peirce includes a
ramework must be explicitly supported by exact quotations from his
> writings. Anyone choosing to employ different terminology must carefully
> spell out how the new terms map to his terms.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synech
/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 8:30 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
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
ne that he describes in his texts.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 8:03 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
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,
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
On Sun 17/10/21 10:00 PM , Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca sent:
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
Then the question I ask is - what is the definition of THE Peircean
analytic framework?
That is, what if someone is examining
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[2]
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:24 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
I thi
ly being manifested in the specific phenomenon that is
under examination? As the saying goes, the devil is in the details.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 9:00 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
Then the question I ask is - what is the definition of THE Peircean
analyt
ynechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 5:24 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
I think it's a sidestep red herring to claim that Gary F did not
describe the person of
will solve whatever the
problems are on this list.
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 1:15 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I'm fine with and would love a real coffee house chat - but I'm not
into Skype or Zoom. Won't even do it with my kids.
I think that Robert Marty's post is correct - where h
; that is, thinking without a judgmental
sucking-up/talking-down attitude (spatial metaphor). Face-to-face
interaction makes it easier to switch into a horizontal attitude
(spatial metaphor).
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 12:33 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Exactly!! That's the spirit
Exactly!! That's the spirit!
And it shows, clearly, how different subject matters are treated on
this list.
Edwina
On Sat 16/10/21 12:23 PM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
I think it could be helpful for the group that has been complaining
about the subject matter
- Original Message -
From: Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca
To: s...@bestweb.net, mahe3...@gmail.com
Sent: Sat 16/10/21 11:58 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Should we start a new
email list (was Peirce's
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
Thank you so much for this excellent outline of the reason for the Y
graph of the semiosic triad. It's perfect.
AND - I like your statement: "The point in the center is either the
name off a
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
thank you Robert, for this analysis. But I'm beginning to think that
the Peirce-List is not equipped to handle the exploration of Peirce
and his analytic framework in the 21st century.
After all -
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, List
I won't speak for John but only myself. I'm a bit confused by your
post.
First - I don't believe that anyone - whether in the 'pure
philosophy' field or the applied fields can ever say:
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
I obviously completely agree. A vital issue in Peircean studies is-
what do his ideas mean for us today? Quite frankly, to confine
Peircean studies to textual analysis, terms, etc has its uses, but,
it
a. The question then arises, what is the object of this perfect
sign, by which it "is perpetually being acted upon"? If the
spontaneous changes that it "never ceases to undergo" do not happen
"by its will," then by what will do they happen?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt
List
1] I think it is important to be extremely careful of reductionism.
And to be careful of terms and their meaning.
First - Is a 'sign' the discrete triad or the mediative node, the
representamen or is it the process of triadic mediation?
2] As Peirce wrote -"No
ake Our Ideas Clear”)
Martin W. Kettelhut, PhD ListeningIsTheKey.com [1]303 747 4449
On 7 Oct 2021, at 11:39 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Martin, List
Now, that's a surprising comment - with regard to my view of Popper.
I've always considered him to be against a certain
ynechist
Philosopher, Lutheran Christianwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1]
- twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Thu, Oct 7, 2021 at 12:57 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca
[3]> wrote:
Jack, list
Good heavens - A cutting board example!
1] No, the Y shaped fo
erator). Popper is afraid that a
realist commitment to truth = closedness, or truth-with-an-agenda.
Unlike Peirce, Popper could not negotiate generality or continuity.
Martin W. Kettelhut, PhD
On 7 Oct 2021, at 8:11 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
2] I have used Popper to compare with P
s therefore not surprising to find
that beyond the three elements of Firstness, Secondness, and
Thirdness, there is nothing else to be found in the phenomenon "
Best regards,Robert Marty
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty [5]
http
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Margaretha
1] I believe I sent you a post, just after your original post to
this list, with a comment that the Peircean triad doesn't function as
a triangle but in a Y shape.
That is, the three nodal
List - I don't think that all these quotations can really deal with
problems on the list.
After all - the quotation below could be read as supporting a
perspective of someone who 'blows with the wind', I.e, an a priori
mode of 'Fixation of Belief'just as much as it can show
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
don't think these suggestions - of not using 'you' [or a personal
name or synonym] or 'not taking offense' will deal with the problems
of the List.
I still think that it's a tribal attitude, where some posters
, he will not be more convincing..
Therefore when the rhetorician is more convincing than the doctor,
the ignorant is more convincing among the ignorant than the expert.
With best wishes,
Jerry R
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 12:58 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
I think
I think it is very difficult to change this list. It can be
difficult to post, since one is so frequently met with, not a
discussion, but authoritative assertions of 'No, Peirce did not
say/mean...that'...
One doesn't find words like: "In my understanding' or 'in my view'.
Or
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
Are these strawmen? From my reading of the De Tienne slides, the
function of mathematics within our analysis of the world, an analysis
which includes phaneroscopy, seems to be non-existent. De Tienne made
1 - 100 of 1728 matches
Mail list logo
