of
inquiry in a place where inquiry is valued and where heretical views
are welcomed (until, say, the arguments against them make them
untenable to the heretic himself).
Best,
Gary R
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City U
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John - thank you - very good advice.
Edwina
On Thu 02/08/18 3:18 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
Gary F,
The practice of avoiding the word 'you' may seem to be trivial,
but it is surprisingly effect
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John - thank you - very good advice.
Edwina
On Thu 02/08/18 3:18 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
Gary F,
The practice of avoiding the word 'you' may seem to be trivial,
but it is surprisingly effect
Gary F, list
The issue is NOT whether or not 'the truth' exists as a reality. We
can all acknowledge that there IS such a final stage. Such an
acknowledgment therefore denies relativism and nominalism - which
rejects the reality of truth - and equally, denies the reality of
fal
Mike, list
Yes - I see your point - but my point was that we shouldn't merge
two types of expression. There is the analysis and interpretation of
a theory, such as those of Peirce - and in such a case, I think we
should frame our comments as our individual interpretation - and n
)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, list
So-" human knowledge, ...
USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 5:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
John, list
And from your post - I conclude that not merely 'absolute precision'
is
ll, according to Peirce, one
ought do what s/he can do to make the world a more reasonable place.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York718 482-5690
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Edwina Taborsk
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
And from your post - I conclude that not merely 'absolute precision'
is impossible, but by that notion, absolute truth is impossible since
'continuous variation subsists'. ..which means - no final Truth
finition” of truth is
precisely Peirce’s, which has nothing to do with a “singular
meaning” (whatever that could mean!).
If and when you respond with some comprehension to what I actually
wrote, I’ll be happy to respond in turn. I will not respond to
baseless surmises about what I mean
Gary F, list
I agree that there are multiple communities focused on the work of
Peirce. However, I disagree with your evaluation of the 'value' of
each community.
That is, if I understand you, Gary F, correctly, you seem to
consider that only the community engaged in th
wn approach as "dynamic" or "interactional" implies
that your approach may be more dyadic than triadic (as Peirce used
these terms in his semeiotic). However, my guess is that you may be
using those expressions in a more metaphysical than a logical way.
EDWINA; My descript
with that! I don't
describe my approach as 'dynamic'. I describe Peircean semiosis as
'dynamic' - i.e. it's focus is on adaptive interaction - such that a
sound can become a meaning; a chemical can become a component of a
plant that repels caterpillars. This dynam
estions, had this list not existed. This list
and its keepers are very benefitial, I think. Best, Helmut23.
Juli 2018 um 21:19 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
List -
Helmut - Of course your outlines are based on your own analysis -
and as such, are open to the ex
that my considerations are in accord with Peirce, they
are based on the categories, though I have added a time-concept to the
categories concept´s explanation. They are also based on Stanley N.
Salthes distinction between subsumption (related with classification)
and composition. Best, Helmut
gnizes that it is no inconsiderable art, this
business of “phaneroscopic” analysis by which one frames a
scientific definition. ] EP2:403, 1907 ]
Gary f.
From: Edwina Taborsky
Sent: 23-Jul-18 09:15
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Logical Depth and Signification
List:
I consider Helmut's point as valid; I consider that a Sign, as a
triad, most definitely has a composition - of that triad. So, yes, an
IO is part of a Sign's composition, but, the DO is, I maintain, also
part of the Sign's composition. After all - the Sign, that triad,
onl
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Stephen, list
I would instead say that all 'things that emerge' are aspects of
Mind and thus, are Signs. That is, I don't think that the Mind is a
'box'..and that things 'come up in the mind'. Mind emerges as matt
hes to treat the Sign as a triad that includes
the IO, the II, and whatever is left over after those are "removed,"
one must come up with a new name for the latter; Peirce never called
it a "Representamen," or anything else as far as I can tell.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, Jun
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
I have to include myself with Gary R as - in my 1stness - stunned
by your abandonment of defining the Sign itself as that triad of
II-R-II! You fought for just this definition, tooth and nail, for
month
the
observation that nature is at least as creative as man, actually even
more so. I think that the possibly information which the rheme holds
might prove to be a testable hypothesis (in human or biosemiotics or,
perhaps, both).
So, again, thanks for a most thought-provoking post.
Best,
Gary
Gary
Gary F, list:
I am saying that I understand [I think] your interpretation of the
rheme as lacking an Immediate Object- and it makes sense to me -
which is why I said it was a logical analysis. After all, if the
semiosic interaction is not direct [indexical] - then, one does
inde
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
Even if the rheme does not direct attention to an actual DO in
current time - then, my question is that it might direct attention to
one in the future. That was my point that in the physico-chemical and
biolo
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}I'm not sure if quantum actions will link to the future- since the
future has to be open to multiple interactions. I think that quantum
actions link to the non-local and to the vague and general.
Edwina
On Sun
NO Immediate Object? I'm beginning to think that there
would indeed be an IO - linked to a future currently non-actualized
DO.
Edwina
On Sun 24/06/18 9:59 AM , Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca sent:
List:
I think that Gary F is making a well-argued and logical case,
es that
connection to a Dynamic Object? Can a feeling of heat - which
becomes existential in a nanosecond - can it exist as that feeling
without that connection to actual matter and mind - even if that
connection is by a secondary relation?
I think that Gary F has some strong points in
a sign process, I think, we should distinguish
between correct (sincere) and incorrect economy from the start,
because maybe most economy is not sincere and just. So the thirdness
of economy also implies politics as a correcting institution.
Economists often deny that, and say, that economy has
evertheless: The Spartacus gang.
Because you cannot extinguish the DNA. And: Legality is not the same
as justice. Laws may be unjust, and were and are, examples are
galore. Best, Helmut 21. Juni 2018 um 18:28 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
Helmut, list
I'm not sure what
H/G-DNA. The H/Gs
were free, equal, and had to rely on each others. The H/G-era was so
long, some 100,000 years, that it did impress in the DNA. Best,
Helmut 20. Juni 2018 um 20:43 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Helmut, list
I don't think that the Indus Valley soc
o misuse his/her work for gaining power over others than a peasant
has. But that is what democracy is for, to have the governing process
controlled by the people to avoid misuse and nonequality. Best, Helmut
20. Juni 2018 um 19:36 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
Helmut, list:
democracy is for, to have the governing process controlled by the
people to avoid misuse and nonequality. Best, Helmut 20. Juni
2018 um 19:36 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
Helmut, list:
No - I very much disagree with you. We are not 'genetically H/G'. We
are geneti
a good job
either: He had to symbolically marry mother earth, and convince her
to give good harvest. If then the harvest was not good, he was killed
and thrown into the swamp, and a new king was elected. Helmut19.
Juni 2018 um 16:43 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Hmm- I'
p, and a new king was elected. Helmut19.
Juni 2018 um 16:43 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
wrote:
Hmm- I'm inclined to think that 'religions' - by which I am
assuming a belief in metaphysical powers, begins first at the
individual psychological level, where th
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Clark, list:
Your comment points to some basic differences in societal analysis.
You are taking a view that societies 'evolve' from, presumably, the
simple to the complex - and therefore, assuming that beliefs and
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Hmm- I'm inclined to think that 'religions' - by which I am assuming
a belief in metaphysical powers, begins first at the individual
psychological level, where the individual becomes aware of his own
finite nature and lack
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list:
I disagree with your 'natural progression'. In my view, there isn't
any such natural 'social evolution'. The cause, so to speak, of
political and social organization is: Population size. And populatio
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - yes, nicely put, and therefore:
1] Freedom of speech is vital; and,
2] Not all belief systems are equally valid, are equally able to
'bear scrutiny' - and - this means that not all belief systems
ww.hup.harvard.edu/ [3]catalog.php?isbn=9780674749672 Jon
Alan Schmidt has further developed those musings in a most
interesting and creative way in his recent paper which he's provided
a link to. In my reading, these speculations tend to support the
hypothesis of God.
Best,
Gary
Gary
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list:
My understand of 'the Real' refers to generals rather than
individual instantiations or existences of that generality.
Now - we can presumably consider that IF truth, i.e., in this case,
the R
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Stephen, list:
This refers to the 'reality' of belief - as outlined by Peirce in
his Fixation of Belief.
In my view, a belief is - as you say, supposition. It does not
function in the realm of facts. Howe
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Stephen, Gary R, list
Since the Universe is an evolving articulation of Mind-as-Matter,
then, I would suggest that the likelihood of intelligent, or
conscious, life elsewhere has to be about 100%.
Edwina
05/18 6:06 PM , Matt Faunce matthewjohnfau...@gmail.com
sent:
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:25 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
And this is the crux of the debate - the meaning of the terms we
use. Two important elements could be added to this discussion:
(1) Peirce said "the capital principle of
05/18 6:06 PM , Matt Faunce matthewjohnfau...@gmail.com
sent:
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:25 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
And this is the crux of the debate - the meaning of the terms we
use. Two important elements could be added to this discussion:
(1) Peirce said "the capital principle of
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 7:25 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary R, list
And this is the crux of the debate - th
life.
Edwina, I am personally getting tired of this "debate." You seem
married to your positions and unwilling to reconsider any one of them
or any part of any one of them. I find your analysis of Peirce's views
of God and religion illogical. At this point and out o
that "Peirce denies God as the
Creator"; on the contrary, he explicitly affirmed it, over and over.
Jon S.
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:24 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JAS, list:
1] Your argument may be logically valid as a basic syllogism but its
premises could be false. The p
eir
premises. Can you provide evidence that all Christians subscribe
to every single one of those premises? On the contrary, I am a
Christian, but neither a Roman Catholic nor a Thomist; consequently,
while I certainly embrace some of Aquinas's premises, I do not hold
to all of them.
R
pret
his writings on these subjects as I do, please read my entire paper (
https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187/152244). If you have
no such desire, then we are really just wasting each other's (and
everyone else's) time.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:47 PM,
t are comfortable for
us . . . if we have the ears to hear or the eyes to see and the
willingness to engage!
Best,
Gary
Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication
StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New York 718
482-5690
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Edwina Tabor
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jerry- I think that a basic tactic to reduce the 'interminable' back
and forth [since much of it isn't an Argument] is to stop the use of
emotional terms and assertions about each other.
I, for instance, don't fe
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }I
think that Peirce rejected the concept that Mind is 'immanent' in
Nature but that Mind is, as made up of all three categories, is an
ACTION of organization, of developing habits [Thirdness] AND also,
of dissipating thes
deal with
"different subjective descriptions of the term 'God'," but a very
specific definition; and they are strictly "Authoritative" only for
Roman Catholic Thomists.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Layma
y
week, in the year 4004 B.C., but is going on today and never will be
done" (CP 1.615, EP 2:255; 1903).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sun, Ma
or precisely the opposite reason that you are claiming.
CSP: Hume, in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, justly
points out that the phrase "Supreme Being" is not an equivalent of
"God," since it neither implies infinity nor any of the other
attributes of God, excepting only B
Helmut, list:
I don't think that 'theism' means 'reality as functionality'. Theism
to my understanding means a belief in a god/gods, understood as a
Supreme Reality or Being. That is, the notion of hierarchy is
introduced; this hierarchy is understood to mean that this god/gods
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Hey, John - you forgot: Happy Mother's Day.
[mutter, mutter, seethe, fume...if my kids ever did that..mutter,
mutter].
By the way - I fully agree with your comments. I think it is
bordering on the ridic
r to completely disagree.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies LaGuard
lacks this - is a psychopath.
I agree.
ET: So- we'll have to disagree on this issue.
On the issues of whether Peirce believed in the Reality of God and
saw God as similtudine to "Spirit, or Mind," and whether Christian
and Jewish faith do or do not represent "religious trad
y, that we may loosely say that He is a Spirit, or Mind. (R
843; 1908)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Edwina
has always been a
contentious matter for some Peirce scholars (I mean especially the
ones who are atheists or agnostics), but in my view Peirce's
arguments regarding the Reality of God speak for themselves.
Best,
Gary R
Gary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication
StudiesLa
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon Alan, list:
If one is, unlike you, not a theist, then, your answers don't
provide any rationale for 'the nature of existence'. Your assertion
that one simply has to accept the 'reality of god' is a Fixation of
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List:
This is the type of research, outside of the rather isolate realms
of philosophy, into the pragmatics of reality - where I think
Peircean pragmatics can be a powerful analytic tool.
But, but - does this mean that the world became so hidebound with
habits [Thirdness] that it obliterated Firstness and thus - any and
all finite entities [Secondness]
Edwina
On Fri 27/04/18 5:59 AM , Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net sent:
The world ended on April 23.Did you no
In reply, see below
On Fri 20/04/18 10:29 PM , frances.ke...@sympatico.ca sent:
Frances to Edwina and listers---
My search goes on for a Peircean approach to at least metaphysical
being. In response to your kind reply, consider some of my rambling
tentative guesses, but withou
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John - what's the difference between a 'language game' and a
'grammatical sentence'?
Thanks
Edwina
On Mon 16/04/18 12:05 AM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
Jerry, Stephen, and Helmut,
In his late
April 2018 um
17:35 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
Helmut, list
Interesting. I continue to differentiate between the internal and
external - and also, between the local stimuli and non-local laws.
I agree that the Sign is a functional composition - but I consider
that it is a
this phrasing.
Further, in your own emphasis on the total of six modes, note that O
has two options, I has three options, and R stands alone.
So, in summary, I question whether 'dynamic processes' can ever be
characterized as anything less than triadic. I guess I remain
unconvinced that the
Frances - thanks for your comments. I'll try to respond below
On Wed 11/04/18 10:13 PM , frances.ke...@sympatico.ca sent:
Frances in the wings to Edwina and listers---
1. Allow me to musingly guess, it perhaps may be the representamen
of phenomena that fully fills the whole cosm
Further, in your own emphasis on the total of six
modes, note that O has two options, I has three options, and
R stands alone.
So, in summary, I question whether 'dynamic processes' can
ever be characterized as anything less than
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
Mike - I sent a long response but it seems to have disappeared. I'll
try again.
First - I expect this response will be met with indifference or
sneers from the list but I maintain that there is nothing in my view
t
As a cat-person, I agree - one can figure out if the cat has been a
pet..or, rather, if the cat has at some time, managed to control some
hapless human to serve its cat-needs.
Edwina
On Tue 10/04/18 4:33 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 4/10/2018 4:02 PM, Edwina T
Thirdness. But I think all three categories
are involved..I won't bother the list with these ideas.
Edwina
On Tue 10/04/18 3:46 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 4/10/2018 12:33 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> I... view 'the Sign' not as an intellectual co
y discussion again and
again. I wonder what could we do about this. Best, Helmut 10.
April 2018 um 14:35 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky"
Mike, list
Nice post - I'll just comment briefly before specifically commenting
on Gary R's post.
I'm not in the camp o
bove. But I believe
that besides that one clear point of agreement at the top of this
post as well as some apparent partial agreement in a few other
points, that, with further inquiry, we might arrive at others.
Meanwhile, I very much look forward to your response to this message
should you offer one
as well as some apparent partial
agreement in a few other points, that, with further
inquiry, we might arrive at others.
Meanwhile, I very much look forward to
your response to this message should you offer one. But, I
think that for now I'll leave the
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - see my responses below:
On Sat 07/04/18 1:06 PM , Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, Jon, list,
1] Gary R: Edwina, all the things that you question, disagree, or
reject here will be found in Peirce. He
CP 6.201; 1898). Hence recognizing that a Sign is an Entelechy
(3ns), as Peirce himself explicitly did, does not at all deny the
Reality of Form (1ns) and Matter (2ns); on the contrary, I see it as
an integral aspect of his robust three-Category realism.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, List-
With regard to the statement by Jon:
"My long-term objective in all of this remains to understand how
semeiotic may be defined as the science of the laws of the stable
establishment of habits (
rse as a whole), but to each particle- to speak
of "individuation" in this case would mean to call a particle an
individual. If this is too far fetched, then perhaps your term
"internalized habits" is better. Best, Helmut02. April 2018 um
22:57 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky&
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Agreed - it's a hot topic.
If I recall correctly, Stan Salthe, as am I, is a pansemiotician -
i.e., we consider that semiosis functions right down to and including
the atomic level.
A rock, for example,
t;Signs as Experienced
hic et nunc; such as any single word in a single place in a single
sentence of a single paragraph of a single page of a single copy of a
Book" (EP 2:483). Once again, the former is a formal attribute of a
general, and the latter--accompanied by the exact same
illustrat
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }
At a brief glance, I'd say that Jesper Hoffmeyer provides the best
answer: get rid of nominalism. And most of the semiotic world is
deeply embedded within nominalism, where 'this' means 'that'and
has no knowledge of
I am proposing out of hand, rather
than engaging with it in good faith. I concede that your objections
might very well turn out to be accurate, but just asserting them over
and over is not going to persuade me of that.
Jon S.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon,
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Terry, list
For some reason, your posts don't seem to make it to the Peirce list
- that is, I'm not receiving them. However, I fully agree with your
reading of Peirce, that the universe is composed exclusively of
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
What, exactly are the problems that you are trying to solve?
I don't see that Peirce rejected a pragmatic connection to his
theories; as a pragmatacist - I don't think he considered his
theories
; and
"Matter" (along with "Entelechy"), which is probably more evidence of
failure to communicate on my part.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon, list:
The problem with a debate where one person says that he wi
he vital role of induction [which is the
domain of 2ndness and indexical/Sinsign] and abduction [which is the
domain of 1stness and the Qualisign].
I have never said or implied any such thing. My published work on
"The Logic of Ingenuity" explicitly includes retroduction, deduction,
and induc
ers,
spontaneous cry]..
Again, I apologize for being unclear.
Edwina
On Fri 30/03/18 5:01 PM , Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca sent:
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list
And that's a problem - that you are not prepared to
" How many more times will I
have to reiterate that our models of semiosis and corresponding
terminology are very different before you stop criticizing it solely
on that basis?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.Linked
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List - My problems with JAS's list below is partly terminology and
partly conceptual.
1] What do you, JAS, mean by a 'Sign'? The triad or the
Representamen? And do you consider the Representamen to be a 'Sign'
onl
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R, list:
Thanks for a very wise post.
I very much agree with its assertion that semiosis is NOT
restricted to mediative process guided by general
signs/representamens - but that mediation includes S
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}list
I've just received a notice about a new book from a long time friend
and colleague, Ron Cottam, which speaks, I suggest, to some of the
questions explored on this list. Bridging the Gap between Life and
Phys
ot; I
think? "Fuzzy(ness)": Are there two (or more, think of others)
reasons for fuzziness: Graduality, subjectivity...? Best, Helmut
25. März 2018 um 23:46 Uhr
"John F Sowa"
wrote: On 3/25/2018 5:08 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> I think that it's very difficult to
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John - Yes, I see your point. And especially point 6!!!
Edwina
On Mon 26/03/18 9:21 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 3/26/2018 8:17 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> My comment is that I think tha
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
Thanks for the outline; I've only had time to check out your slides.
My comment is that I think that a communication line
[Subject-Verb-Object] or even A gives Y to B, is very different from
th
On Sun 25/03/18 4:12 PM , John F Sowa s...@bestweb.net sent:
On 3/25/2018 3:10 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> I would suggest that Peirce's 'haziness' and 'fuzzy logic' have
> a great deal in common.
I agree, but there is one important difference. See the a
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John Sowa, list:
With regard to the 'hazy notion' outlined by Peirce - I'm reminded
of the fuzzy logic theory [see Lotfi Zadeh- who introduced it in, I
think, 1965], which refers to 'many-valued logics, and sugges
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John Sowa, list:
Thanks for your post - excellent. You wrote:
"As a suggestion, I would say that both Jon and Edwina are pursuing
directions that were inspired by, but different from Peirce's.
They could ci
Heh - Jerry, my aims are not personal in the sense of confined to
myself but are 'understanding the writings of Peirce' -
pragmatically.
In other words - their pragmatic application. In my case, I'm
interested in the application of Peircean analysis in biosemiotics.
That obviou
but merely asserting that I am
wasting my time is not going to deter me from pressing forward.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [2]
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 8:1
801 - 900 of 2025 matches
Mail list logo
