uot;SS-SO-SI". To both the complete triadicity
applies, due to the level consisting of 3, 6, 10, 15,...28...66...
completely triadic characters. Best, Helmut 26. April 2020 um
17:02 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut - no, in my view, the object - which to be accurat
es between the object and the interpretant, but also sort
of creates both, isnt it so? So the object as such implies the
relation between itself and the sign. So, if the sign-object-relation
is 2ns, the object might well also be, or not? Best, Helmut 26.
April 2020 um 15:57 Uhr
"Edwina Ta
il 2020 um 15:57 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Gary R - I'll continue with my comments on your post...these might
be haphazard comments..as I read through
1] Again- I have trouble with accepting your position that the three
'elements' of the triadic sign: a
itical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
[2]
Virus-free. www.avg.com
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 2:42 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Helmut, you wrote:
(is it agreed now, that sign is 1ns, object 2ns
iversity of New York
[2]
Virus-free. www.avg.com
On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 2:42 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Helmut, you wrote:
(is it agreed now, that sign is 1ns, object 2ns, and interpretant
3ns?)
I certainly don't agree that the sign/repr
Helmut, you wrote:
(is it agreed now, that sign is 1ns, object 2ns, and interpretant
3ns?)
I certainly don't agree that the sign/representamen is [always?] in
a categorical mode of 1ns, the object in 2ns, the interpretant in
3ns.
Do you mean the order of the
, it would be futile for me to try to
explain it here. Anyway I would only be paraphrasing what I (and
Peirce and Susan Haack) said at
http://www.gnusystems.ca/TS/rlb.htm#attend [1].
Gary f.
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: 25-Apr-20 08:22
To: 'Peirce-L'
; g...@gnusystems.ca
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I'm going to reject your view that I 'oppose almost in principle'
the research known as speculative grammar, which is research into the
nature of a sign as symbol and the nature of symbols ..to their
Gary F - please tell me how I am 'blocking the way to inquiry'.
When I am critiqued by JAS when I use the phrase 'dynamic semiosis'
because Peirce used the term 'dynamic' in a textual reference to the
dyadic action of Secondness - that response is, in my view 'blocking
the way
:481, 1908).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 11:32 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary F, Auke, list
I agree with Ga
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Very funny. Exactly. But remember - we 'see' within our beliefs...It
takes a lot of cool and objective induction, with many examples and
questions, to decide whether to stick with those 'a priori' beliefs
or take the
Gary F, Auke, list
I agree with Gary's comments - however, specifically, I don't see
that the 'minute semiotic analysis' is even a semiotic analysis; it's
a terminological analysis. Semiosis is a dynamic process and a focus
on terms ignores this actuality.
My interest
a
fair amount of information among trees.
"From Tree to Shining Tree"
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/from-tree-to-shining-tree
kp
On 4/17/2020 12:28 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
BODY { font-famil
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John - I agree - most of us don't want to rehash our earlier
arguments about these topics but I don't want to clarify.
I don't think that it's Peirce's work that is controversial, with
some of us preferring to
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John - thank you so very much for this post. I agree with your
comments about plants - and as you say- from bacteria up. Peirce
would even include chemical processes.
Edwina
On Fri 17/04/20 12:09 PM , "John F.
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John - thanks for your comment. I think that's an important point.
" Many theologians have considered Peirce's semeiotic useful for
analyzing theological arguments. But nobody, not even Peirce, has
suggested
ts aspect as a sign,
the "Truth" of being. The "Truth," the fact that is not abstracted but
complete, is the ultimate interpretant of every sign. (EP 2:304,
1904, bold added)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanw
e in its aspect as a
sign, the "Truth" of being. The "Truth," the fact that is not
abstracted but complete, is the ultimate interpretant of every sign.
(EP 2:304, 1904, bold added)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layma
Michael,
Thank you for this excellent introduction. My interest is not in
linguistics but in biological and societal modes of existence and
adaptation - and I can see these elements in your linguistic
analysis. For example, when you write
'always dynamic while
Auke- I have a different view of the Final Interpretant - I see it
as a means of 'changing habits'.
My view of the Final Interpretant is that it is a continuous and
infinite process of generalization, vital to the formation of habits.
That is, the Logical or Final or Destinate
of knowledge. Or Stampers distinction
between a radical subjectivist and an actualist perspective on
matters. As long as no ideological goals are served by the
discussion, I am fine with either approach.
Auke
Op 9 april 2020 om 14:46 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
Auke - Thanks
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Yes - I think Peirce and Spencer Brown work very well together.
Thanks for all your work.
Edwina
On Thu 09/04/20 10:54 AM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent:
Cf: Differential Logic • Discussion 1
At:
. The distinctions made with regard to signs
(small or 1902/3 classification) scaffold the description.
Best, Auke
Op 8 april 2020 om 23:32 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
Auke - thanks for your post.
In this analysis, I'm looking at only the operation of Thirdness in
both its
in itself, sign in relation to iets object and sign as
it adrfresses its interpreting sign.
Auke
Op 7 april 2020 om 16:58 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
Auke
Governance, if we want to use a Peircean category to analyze it,
would always have to be within the mode of Thirdness
Op 7 april 2020 om 14:44 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
I disagree completely with this politicization of the Peircean
categories. I consider that is shows a complete misunderstanding of
the categories. I won't comment on the, what I feel are incorrect,
political references. Just
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
disagree completely with this politicization of the Peircean
categories. I consider that is shows a complete misunderstanding of
the categories. I won't comment on the, what I feel are incorrect,
political references.
oughts, are
pointing into the future for the subject, and for the observer they
have a reason in the past, and an effect on the future. Or
something like that, Best! Helmut 06. März 2020 um 20:56 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut, Dan, list
Koichiro Matsuno, a bio
Helmut, Dan, list
Koichiro Matsuno, a bioengineer, and Peircean scholar, has written
extensively on the notion of time, which he refers to as present,
perfect and progressive [comparable to 1ns,2nd, 3ns]…
I suggest you google his name, and on for example,
Researchgate.net,
Helmut, list
I disagree that continuity is a 'major trait' of Firstness. It is,
of Thirdness - but the point of Firstness is its lack of continuity,
its lack of time. Firstness is 'present time' and only present time.
No 'before' and no 'after'. There is no continuity to it. It
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
I like your comment:
" But the real issue is not about
the cardinality or topology of any sub-posed continuum,
"signiferous ether",
or semiotic medium so much as the empirical data
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca
> To: , @, @, @, Validation failed for: Laws Of Form Group
> lawsoff...@yahoogroups.com, @, @, @
> Sent: Mon 21/10/19 8:21 AM
> Subject: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Difference That Makes A Diff
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
Thanks for the article - I haven't had time to read it thoroughly -
but, it reminds me of the CAS, the complex adaptive system that, to
me, is the heart of Peircean semiosis. And of course, to
List:
Here is an article from the online journal Entropy - which, in my
view, shows the functionality of the Peircean framework.
Note that entropy is akin to Firstness , and the semiosic process -
which is a relational process of constant interactions between
'things'
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jeff, list
Thanks for your interesting suggestions - re the concept of multiple
potentialities - and, as you write, :
Jeff: "This, I think, quite naturally fits with his general
strategy, which is to
of the Universe was that it began in 'Nothing'.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Edwina Taborsky edwina.tabor...@gmail.com
To: edwina.tabor...@gmail.com, tabor...@primus.ca
Sent: Sun 01/09/19 9:47 AM
Subject: Fwd
List
Here is another description in my perhaps futile attempt to show that the
Peircean theoretical infrastructure can be used, with excellent results, to
examine and explain the real world. That is - the world beyond the seminar room.
An off list reference from a member supplied me with the
y Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 2:53 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, list
Yes, I continue to stick by my interpretations - just as others
continue to stick by
tical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 9:30 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R
I'll continue to support my reading of Peirce - which disagrees with
your outline. I know that some on this list have, graciously, defined
me
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Gary R
I'll continue to support my reading of Peirce - which disagrees with
your outline. I know that some on this list have, graciously, defined
me as 'intelligent' - but, alas, also declared that my being
Jeffrey- thanks for your comments and the article. It certainly
describes two different cosmological hypotheses - and - we don't know
which is valid!
Interesting - that Hawking proposed a cosmology where the universe
emerged 'out of nothing'. This seems similar to the outline of Peirce
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Jeff, list
Agreed - all three categories are vital, and as such, I don't think
that we can see Peirce's objective idealism as functioning without
all three - at the same time and all as equally necessary. By the
way - no-one
ast lecture in RLT might begin to if anything might.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication Studies LaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 3:58 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, list
I have a problem
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list
I have a problem with inserting 3ns prior to 1ns in the Origin of
the Universe. That is, I don't see 3ns as a 'spatial continuum'' , My
understanding of 3ns is that it refers to the development and
this list; we all
> have some credibility as scholars; and any disagreements can only be met with
> discussion - but not authoritative judgment by any individual.
>
> Rational people are open to persuasion, rather than dogmatically maintaining
> their predetermined views regardle
ve together.
>
> Dogmatically stand by it all you want, it is an objectively invalid
> interpretation, since Peirce stated plainly in CP 6.24 that "placing the
> inward and outward aspects of substance on a par," and thus "render[ing] both
> primordial," is not idea
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
John, JAS, list
JAS, you wrote:
1] What I have claimed, and do insist upon, is that some
interpretations are invalid--for example, the "reading" that
"objective idealism" as Peirce defined it in CP
part de Edwina Taborsky
Envoyé : jeudi 1 août 2019 13:50
À : Peirce-L
; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee ; Gary Richmond
Objet : Re: [biosemiotics:9319] [PEIRCE-L] Lecture by Terrence
Deacon
Exactly- Peircean semiosis, with its three modal categories and
their subsets [1-1, 2-2
of us has such a right to
self-declare one's interpretation as 'the only valid one'.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:13 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca
[3]> wrote:
JAS, John, list
I'll only respond to references to myself.
JAS - Yes - I have said that Peirce's obj
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, John, list
I'll only respond to references to myself.
JAS - Yes - I have said that Peirce's objective idealism is a form
of idealism [and Peirce did not use the term 'metaphysical idealism'
in
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
1] As NG writes - NG: It is useful to think of the "idealism" half
of Peirce’s philosophy of objective idealism as pointing to a
theory of metaphysics, and the "objective" half, pointing to a theory
of
sewhere described his metaphysics as "a
Schelling-fashioned idealism which holds matter to be mere
specialized and partially deadened mind" (CP 6.102, EP 1:312).
In summary, in 1891-1892, Peirce labeled his own basic metaphysical
doctrine as idealism--specifically, a Schelling-fashioned id
"on a par" (neutralism); and Peirce
explicitly rejected both of these options.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 7:37 AM Edw
t it is
something that Peirce said, meant, implied, or intended.
JFS: Anyone is free to write anything about Peirce that they wish.
But no one has a right to attribute anything to Peirce that does not
explicitly appear in any of his MSS.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 8:57 PM Edwina Ta
nor Mind.
There is no such "reading of Peirce," just a predetermined
"interpretation" that can be maintained only out of sheer dogmatism,
employing the method of tenacity rather than the method of science.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer
Helmut, list
I'd agree with you - I don't see 'pure mind' or 'disembodied spirit'
as 3ns. Thirdness, in my understanding, emerges WITH Matter and is not
separate from its existence. And yes, possibility/1ns is a state and
outside of time.
With regard to the concept of
Now - whether these views are also similar to those of Peirce -
is a matter for debate.
No, again, Peirce's position is quite plainly stated in the text of
CP 6.24-25--not dualism, neutralism, or materialism, but idealism;
specifically, objective idealism, which holds "the psychical law
al
Jon S.
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:27 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list
I cannot find that section in 2.322 where Peirce inserts, in
brackets that, eg, 'consciousness' is [1ns]...etc - and I disagree
with such an insertion. Firstness is feeling, without consciousness -
which
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I cannot find that section in 2.322 where Peirce inserts, in
brackets that, eg, 'consciousness' is [1ns]...etc - and I disagree
with such an insertion. Firstness is feeling, without consciousness -
nd "that matter is effete mind."
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 12:41 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca
[3]>
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, Gary R, list:
I continue to disagree with your stance that Peirce's objective
idealism is equivalent to idealism - and that 'the psychical law is
primordial' - with the psychical law as 3ns.
My
shes' on the "blackboard" of continuity, 3ns.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 5:21 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca
[1]>
way from my downtown desk and do not have my copy of
Incomplete Nature with me uptown where I am about to be entertaining
out of town guests.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Exactly- Peircean semiosis, with its three modal categories and
their subsets [1-1, 2-2; 2-1; 3-3; 3-2; 3-1]; and the semiosic
process of DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI, functions as a Complex Adaptive System
[CAS].
This is
)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 9:42 AM John F Sowa wrote:
On 7/22/2019 8:13 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> That's
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
From time to time, I receive requests for commentary on articles
appearing in Brain and Behavioural Sciences. Here is in article I
received today. I think that the comparisons with the Peircean
categories
,
evolving...and there is no 'final truth'.
Edwina
On Mon 22/07/19 10:42 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 7/22/2019 8:13 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> That's why I assert that there can be no 'Final Interpretant' and
no
> ultimate Truth - not from ignorance bu
exity of the
interactions and data.
Edwina
On Sun 21/07/19 10:10 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 7/21/2019 9:37 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> I consider that 'Truth' is a goal that attempts to connect the DO
and
> the Interpretants, BUT - it is also a reality that it not
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}The outline by JAS is indeed, an outline of the basic infrastructure
of Peircean semiosis - in its reality as a continuous process of
'formation' and 'interpretation. I have a problem, however, with the
notion of Truth
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
John, list
1] ET
> There is absolutely nothing in my outline that can't be found in
Peirce.
JOHN: I sympathize with ET on this point. But I'd like to see any
such
outline, diagram, text, or harmonization posted online.
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
There is absolutely nothing in my outline that can't be found in
Peirce.
That includes the semiosic process of DO-IO-R-II-DI-FI and the three
categorical modes and their 'genuine/degenerate
Gene - an opinion ‘per se’ is ambiguous and therefore irrelevant. An
opinion-by-an-expert-in-the-field is similar to a conclusion that is based on
evidence and analysis. Very different from an ‘opinion’.
Edwina
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 17, 2019, at 10:23 PM, Eugene Halton wrote:
>
> JFS:
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Test post
-
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
l variable, rather a species specified BY IT’S QUALISIGNS..
>
> With regard to:
>
>> Second - I’ve no idea what ‘ontological status within natural philosophy’
>> means.
>
>
> In my opinion, your posts over the roughly two decades of our exchanges,
> fully c
- I’ve no idea what ‘ontological status within natural philosophy’ means.
Edwina
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 15, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Jerry LR Chandler
> wrote:
>
> List:
>
>> On Jul 15, 2019, at 12:52 PM, Edwina Taborsky
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Th
One can get trapped in terminology!
My own view is that the Final Interpretant is an existent not a
reality. If one defines it as a 'reality', then, to me, this suggests
an a priori determination of its nature...which will be 'eventually
articulated as an existent'. That denies
ni
2019 um 17:37 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
My interest, as I've often explained, is not in terminology but in
examining how the Peircean semeiosic analytic infrastructure can be
used to examine and explain what is going on in the real world: the
physico-chem
ticipatory and intentional, is it not only
internal, but external too? Or, in better terms, both immanent and
transcendent?Best, Helmut 27. Juni 2019 um 17:37 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
My interest, as I've often explained, is not in terminology but in
examining how th
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }My
interest, as I've often explained, is not in terminology but in
examining how the Peircean semeiosic analytic infrastructure can be
used to examine and explain what is going on in the real world: the
physico-chemical,
at pigs do have knowledge.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 4:35 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca
[1]> wrote:
JAS, list
I disagree. An argument that is, it itself, fallacious, as I suggest
yours was, cannot be 'supported by a better argument' - since, as I
[2]
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:44 PM Edwina Taborsky < tabor...@primus.ca
[3]> wrote:
JAS, list
I disagree with your comment:
"If someone disagrees with what I post on the List--whether a
particular reading of Peirce's words, or my own suggestion "inspire
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
Perhaps I'm more cynical or sceptical or...but I have my doubts
about our daily opinions having been verified and tested.
After all - the belief that 'evil spirits' cause illness has been a
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I disagree with your comment:
" If someone disagrees with what I post on the List--whether a
particular reading of Peirce's words, or my own suggestion "inspired
by" them--then the proper
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
But how do we get around the fact that most of our beliefs are
'firmly held opinions' without any ability to be factually verified.
That is - we live in, not merely a cultural and historical
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon - I don't think you realize what you are doing. There is no need
to be so defensive about what others write to you with regard to your
comments/interpretations! That's what I said - that if anyone
critiques you, you
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Ben, list
Thank you for your post but I don't think it is as simple as you
outline.
First, if you want to know what Peirce thought, then I think you
will have to read the works yourself and make up your
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
I fully agree and specifically refer to your points
3. "Show how Peirce's writings can clarify, enhance, or correct
writings by more recent authors from the 20th and 21st c.
4. Add
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Agreed - the discussion is based on definitions - and JAS, myself
and Peirce and others don't necessarily share the same definition.
For example, I disagree with JAS's definition of God as an
constitute a rejection of 3ns by denying the Reality of God as Ens
necessarium.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 3:53 PM Edwin
awareness
and consciousness. Scientific mysticism – that’s a very long
journey from modern to contemporary positivism.
Terry
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2019 4:53 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; Jon Alan Schmidt
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce on the Reality of God (w
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, Gene, list
Obviously I disagree with both theological outlines of JAS and Gene.
I didn't comment on Gene's outline because I thought it would take
too much non-Peircean analysis to explain my view
and/or a
Peircean? I feel so much more hopeful and grounded because of your
comments. I’ll not post again on this topic.
Cheers, Mary Libertin
Thanks for the
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:16 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, Gene, Mary, list
I don't think that the term 'patriarchy' merits the
a patriarchy.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 7:16 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, Gene, Mary, list
I don't think that the term 'patriarchy' merits the 'we
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, Gene, Mary, list
I don't think that the term 'patriarchy' merits the 'we are now
superior to this idea' sneers and condescension one sometimes
associates with the term. I think one should look at the
28. Mai 2019 um 22:33 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
Jerry
Exactly. Facts are facts - and the facts of scientific realism
acknowledges that atoms and molecules don't 'exist' randomly all on
their own, even in their microscopic existences, but exist
Chandler
jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com sent:
Edwina:
Facts are facts.Scientific realism is what it is.
Cheers
Jerry
On May 28, 2019, at 1:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jerry, list
The statement is true, if one considers that the map is not just a
collection of atoms, not just
Jerry, list
The statement is true, if one considers that the map is not just a
collection of atoms, not just a collection of chemical molecules -
despite your predilection for so defining the world - but is instead
a semiosic entity, composed of a triadic set of
such a correlation be
valid?
Edwina
On Sat 25/05/19 9:25 AM , Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca sent:
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
My concern in these discussions about 'science' and 'truth' is how
are we to differentiate between what can
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
My concern in these discussions about 'science' and 'truth' is how
are we to differentiate between what can be empirically justified as
truth and what is believed to be truth? Isn't such a distinction
in the “world of fancy.”
Gary f.
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: 23-May-19 11:20
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; g...@gnusystems.ca
Subject: Re: RE: Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric, was,
[PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity of Semeiosis Revisited
Gary F, list
I would
Gary F, list
I would like to commend Gary F for his clear and excellent outline
of the two worlds in which we live, "we live in two worlds, the world
of fact and the world of fancy' [1.321].
As an atheist, my 'fancy' about the nature of the material and
empirical world
401 - 500 of 1728 matches
Mail list logo
