Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Categories vs. Elements (was Lowell Lecture 2.14)

is in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought and not that thoughts are in us.” From CP 5.402 to CP 5.189. "My dear sir," the philosopher will perhaps give him to understand, "it is unlikely that you are not mistaken but why such absolute truth?"- Best, Jerry Rhee On Th

Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.6

Gary f, John, list: Gary, so I take by your post that you're the skeptic and John is the proposer? Best, J On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 7:15 PM, wrote: > John, Jon A, list, > > > > John, you wrote, “Peirce's motivation [for his dialogic approach to EGs] > was the similarity to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.4

That is not clear to me in what was stated in the excerpt from RLT, given > what Peirce says in the excerpt from the second Lowell lecture. > > -- Franklin > > On Oct 24, 2017 6:07 PM, "Jerry Rhee" <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Gary f: >> &

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Learning in the cycle of observation -> reasoning -> action

Gary R., list, I like your post! “All men, Socrates, who have any degree of right feeling, at the beginning of every enterprise, whether small or great, always call upon God. And we, too, who are going to discourse of the nature of the universe, how created or how existing without creation,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.4

stem is far the simpler,— almost > incomparably so. You would not wish me to take you through all those > details. This general statement is all that is appropriate for this brief > course of lectures. > > Be it understood, then, that in logic we are to understand the form “If A

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.4

, Jerry Rhee On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 9:36 AM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Continuing from Lowell 2.3, > > https://www.fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce- > manuscripts/ms-455-456-1903-lowell-lecture-ii/display/13602: > > > > The most immediately useful informa

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1: overview

are the same or different, instead of doing as you did a while ago, using as your basis the ordinary meaning of names and words, which most people pervert in haphazard ways and thereby cause all sorts of perplexity in one another." From CP 5.402 to CP 5.189 one two three.. Object Sign Interpre

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Deduction, induction, abduction, categories

Dear list, If what we all say is true, then when it comes to making our ideas clear, it appears Peirce was not altogether a Greek-minded man. With best wishes, Jerry Rhee On Sun, Sep 3, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > All through this, it se

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

simply the ultimate aim, the summum bonum, growth of concrete reasonableness; since the only moral evil is not to have an *ultimate aim?* *In syllogisms, then, which prove the inherence of an attribute, nothing falls outside the major term.~ Pr. An., I-23* Best, Jerry Rhee On Mon, Aug 7, 2017

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Dear list, "In an illuminating image, Aristotle compares the use made by the noetic soul of phantasia to the role of diagrams in geometry: *It is impossible even to think (noein) without a mental picture (phantasmatos). The same affection (pathos) is involved in thinking (noein) as in drawing

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Helmut, list: You said: “Is "I-think" the same as "consistency"?” To which I would reply: Consider what effects that might *conceivably* have practical bearings you *conceive* the objects of your *conception* to have. Then, your *conception* of those effects is the whole of your

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Helmust, list: Accordingly, just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that motion is in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that thoughts are in us. Best, J On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > List, > Are trichotomies and triads

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

hem as distinct as it is in their nature to be is, however, no small task*.” ~Peirce Best, Jerry Rhee On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 31, 2017, at 12:52 PM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > In my view Gary R. is gravely wr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: { Information = Comprehension × Extension }

John, list: On 6/27/2017 6:08 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > Thanks for making what might otherwise appear confusing and complex, clear > and simple. Not I, but Gary said the above I saw what you were doing... explaining by means of itself. best, J On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:19 PM, John F S

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: { Information = Comprehension × Extension }

John, list: yeah, that was a great post! J On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 4:34 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > John, > > Thanks for making what might otherwise appear confusing and complex, clear > and simple. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

in woman.” ___ “It is long ago that I experienced the reasons for my opinions. Should I not have to be a cask of memory, if I also wanted to have my reasons with me?” *Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true.* Best, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.ri

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

J On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 6:11 PM, <g...@gnusystems.ca> wrote: > Jerry R, > > > > http://gnusystems.ca/TS/ntx.htm > > > > gary f. > > > > *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 22-Jun-17 18:26 > > Gary f, > > > > h

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Gary f, how do you tell the two apart? Best, jerry r On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:08 PM, wrote: > Jon, I'm not sure what you're driving at on these roads, but when I > suggested that terms should always be “taken in context” by a > reader/listener, I was referring to the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] An apology

Dear list: I appreciate Gary and list-moderators' earnest willfulness to maintain Ransdell’s original intention. It can be viewed as a thankless but beautiful responsibility. With respect to kirsti’s comment: "This time, John, I have to say: Wrong, wrong, wrong, You just don't know what

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Dear list: h, I like where this conversation is headed, for you cannot have this conversation without ultimately lighting on syllogism. :) Best, J On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > Gary: > > On Jun 13, 2017, at 1:02 PM,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Dear list: I thought ‘ergo’ was simply identical with ‘hence’, which is what follows ‘the’ and ‘but’ in the argument CP 5.189. I believe *that* thought is simple and complex enough; for it contains terms, propositions and illation, as well. I see* even* the recognition that arguments may

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

kirsti, list: You said, "If I were to bring up biology to this discussion with you , it would be very different from your conception of biology. – Would take all too much time and energy to get our views close enough." If you're genuinely concerned about this matter, then just say the

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

, Jerry R On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:29 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > kirsti, list: > > thanks for your response. I am well aware of certain things and not so of > others. But when I raise attention to the sizing and scaling problem, I am > concerned w

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

ce. > > Wave theory is needed, not just particle theory. They are complementary. > As you most likely well know. > > Also, the question of proper scale must be tackled before any attepts to > measure sizes in any sensible way. > > Best, Kirsti > > > Jerry Rhee kirjoitti

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

your reasons and grounds. > > With most kind regards. > > Kirsti > > > > > > Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 6.6.2017 21:21: > >> Dear kirsti, all, >> >> "The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than 50 >> cells in any direction.&quo

Re: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

Dear kirsti, all, "The size of embryonic fields is, surprisingly, usually less than 50 cells in any direction." Surprisingly, that makes a morphogenetic field about 500um in diameter. Best, J On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 1:10 PM, wrote: > Helmut, > > "Morphogenetic field"

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

are influenced by genetics and chance interactions (cell positioning, environmental interactions over time). Regardless, I’m glad I read it, for its historical and topical content. Best, J On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > John, list: &

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

John, list: Thanks for that informative post. Just to be clear, you are saying Hamiltonian:Lagrangian :: local state:global state? best, Jerry On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 2:34 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > On 6/1/2017 11:23 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: > >> If you have watched

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination and Creation in Sign-Action

, May 1, 2017 at 2:46 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 5/1/2017 1:52 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > >> You said: "Useful exercise: Finding examples from Peirce's writings >> that show how he related his categories to phaneroscopy." >> >> Bu

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination and Creation in Sign-Action

to > remembering, was discussed above. In spite of this quibble, it still seems > necessary to regard states of knowledge as a distinctive class. The > reasons for this may lie in the fact that a useful definition of inquiry > for human beings necessarily involves a whole community of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

* (Result/Rule/Case- C A *B*) So, choose: C A *B* or C B *A * (triadic relations = three dyads). Hth, Jerry Rhee On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > List, Charles: > > On Apr 30, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Charles Pyle <charl

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Determination and Creation in Sign-Action

Great quote! Thanks Jon, Tom, list! J On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 7:42 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > Tom, List ... > > One of my favorite passages in this stream ... > > I put down the cup and turn to my mind. It is up to my mind to find the > truth. But how? What grave uncertainty,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Dear list: I wish to point out just how ridiculously clear this statement is: "...Peirce says that it was an error on his part to treat the second category as relation and the third category as representation." Best, J On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nature of Habit

Clark, list: “It seems to me that 1907’s famous MS 318 is pretty key to all this the more I think about it. That’s partially because he speaks of three habit-interpretants and changes how he talks of habit somewhat.” Yes! J one two three… C A B… utterer interpreter commens… esthetics

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Dear all, “Breaking up habits to create new habits is habit creation.” So what is chance doing, breaking up habits or creating new ones? Is the habit stable or unstable? Which habit, the broken up one or the newly created one? What is the start; a condition of disorder or a condition of

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

rovider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Thu 06/04/17 2:51 PM , Jerry Rhee jerryr...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina, > > > > I put myself forth as a biologist before anything else and I object to > your classification of mutation/natural selection (rather, descent with &

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Edwina, I put myself forth *as* a biologist before anything else and I object to your classification of mutation/natural selection (rather, descent with modification) as a *neoDarwinian hypothesis*. That’s just terrible. There is a lot that has been contemplated about chance/spontaneity in

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Icon Index Symbol

gt; On 4/5/2017 11:50 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > >> Jerry, List ... >> >> Just back from travel and it may be a while before I get back in gear, >> but here's a few links on how I would (and long ago did) begin to get >> a handle on the issue, with an eye as alw

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Clark, Edwina, list: If you know that “Local entropy can (and often does) decrease whereas the universal entropy increases” then perhaps you thought to place this law in context of entities with permeable membranes. It seems to me an important matter to consider if one is going to talk

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Edwina, Clark, list: Clark, you said: “So fundamentally the question is whether Peirce’s view that the universe is growing to more reasonableness is incompatible with thermodynamics. Clearly it is. Hmmm… then what’s the semiotic answer to why spirals in BZ reaction? What did people say of

[PEIRCE-L] icon index symbol

How best do you distinguish between these terms? What settles it? Tx, Jerry R - 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

Re: RE: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term

The very word *means *signifies something which is in the middle between two others. Moreover, this third state of mind, or Thought, is a sense of learning, and learning is the means by which we pass from ignorance to knowledge. There are three kinds of signs. Firstly, there are

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term

There is much hubris. Words are defective. we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that thoughts are in us. There are three kinds of signs. The word *symbol* has so many meanings that it would be an injury to the language to add a new one. In the first figure; the middle is

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term

*`when once it is written, every composition trundles about everywhere in the same way, in the presence both of those who know about the subject and of those who have nothing at all to do with it.. ~ *Phaedrus *Few persons care to study logic, because everybody conceives himself to be

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

":--*O wonderful being, and to what are you looking? I hope not to red... On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 9:16 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote: > > On Mar 27, 2017, at 7:40 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > I apologize for repeating myself--or rather, for repeating

Re: Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term

Dear list: rather ironic that the ultimate, immutable aim- the one that should accord with a free development of the agent's own esthetic quality- takes on the form of a carrot, no? Best, Jerry R On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Claudio Guerri wrote: > Mein lieber

Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term

ate: Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 1:04 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term To: Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> Dear All, I agree with you too Jerry the fact is 'only' a human observation so it it not the FACT anymore... and if the fact is "surprising", then, you don

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] semantic problem with the term

Dear all, The *surprising* *fact*, (object) C, is observed (by a human);... Best, Jerry R On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > The FACT that the content of the immediate and dynamic object are > different indeed 'makes us just humans' but I'd say

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Clark, list: I have to say, I really like this sentence: “Peirce’s notion largely comes out of the idea that for a difference to be a difference it must make a difference and that those differences over time act on inquirers.” But this one leaves me uneasy: “Peirce gets the idea of habit

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

an “aim should be immutable under all circumstances” quite literally. Best, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 1:49 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 3/16/2017 11:20 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > >> The way I usually think about it is that there are many conti

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Signs are logical arguments...except when they aren't. The issue is whether Signs correspond to real. The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by *all who investigate*, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. Best, Jerry On Mon,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

That the concept of truth requires order, index and inferring is not obvious to all. In other words; that order, index and inferring is contained in truth requires awareness through collateral experience. Best, Jerry R On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

...and there you have it. Only *everybody* can know the truth. The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by *all who investigate*, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. The true precept is not to abstain from hypostatization, but to

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

Dear list: I think one can easily underestimate the possibilities of what one is doing when one is playing games and potential consequences. “The discussion of questions like these brings one face to face with problems which offer as much intellectual challenge as quantum indeterminacy or

[PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

sion, or a variant symmetry > involved, though it may get flattened out > in the Flatland of Spectator Philosophies. > So I'll make an attempt to flesh that out > later today, or more like later this week. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On 3/6/2017 3:16 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: &

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

But is this not simply *The surprising fact C is observed;... * Best, Jerry R CP 5.189 On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > Ben, Jon, List, > > One way to characterize the double aspect of inquiry is > by contrasting a “Surprise” that demands an Explanation >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real

"To go further than this, and try to establish abstract laws of greatness and superiority, *is to argue without an object*; in practical life, particular facts count more than generalizations. Enough has now been said about these questions of possibility and the reverse, of past or future fact,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

23. Moreover, you shouldn’t reject traditional metaphysics until you even have an inkling of what is meant by a syllogism addressing the discourse in the soul. Hth, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > Words are not merely psy

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

Hi Soren, EP 2: 463. Best, Jerry On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 5:23 PM, Søren Brier <sbr@cbs.dk> wrote: > Where can I find Peirce’s: *An Essay toward Improving our Reasoning in > Security and Liberty*, from 1913?? > > > > Best > > Sø

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

; Minor Premise >> Conclusion >> ...with the additional format rules about 'universal', distribution, >> negatives, etc etc..' Nothing to do with words per se. >> >> Words are meaningful, in my view, only in specific contexts; they gain >> their meaning within the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

With best wishes, Jerry Rhee On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jerry - I'm sure you are joking. The format of a syllogism is: > Major Premise > Minor Premise > Conclusion > ...with the additional format rules about 'universal', dis

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" from AI perspective

On “'Whether such a thing as metaphysics be at all possible?' It seems almost ridiculous, while every other science is continually advancing, that in this, which pretends to be Wisdom incarnate, for whose oracle everyone inquires, we should constantly move round the same spot, without gaining a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Mindsets • Relations, Triadic Relations, Sign Relations

, Posterior Analytics and Prior Analytics Hth, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > Mike, Jerry, Jon, Edwina, List ... > > The Germans have a word for it ... «Einstellung» ... > but never mind that now ... > > I only wanted to sa

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Generals, Realism, Individuals, Nominalism

Dear list: It is statements like the following that makes the whole matter of adopting CP 5.189 and not CP 5.402 that much more baffling. “When it comes to matters of methodology and putting the pieces in their proper order, I support these sorts of moves.” ~Jeff Oh well, I suppose this

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce, Wittgenstein and what cannot be said

Hi Edwina, Stephen, list: Edwina, I didn’t realize Stephen had a system. Irrespective of that, you demand much of him. To put it another way, how can you defend your statement that all cognitive processes operate as a triad other than to say, “because Peirce, or because Plato, or because

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Generals, Realism, Individuals, Nominalism

think Stephen was referring. Best, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you use the term universal providing a context it seems to me to be a > useful use of it. I use it to refer to values which I believe have > universa

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

Eric, list: I don't mean to be a gadfly but this is what a nominalist would say: "Real things are just those things that have effects, and effects are things that can, at least in principle, be detected/known." This is an example of the difference between "consider what effects..." (James'

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

to get a hold of important themes. I would like to add that the regularity *is* interlocutors walking away. So the question is how to get out of that dilemma. “What argument would remould such people?” ~Aristotle, *Nichomachean Ethics X, 9* Hth, Jerry Rhee On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 5:57 PM

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Dear list: “*Now ‘prior’ and ‘better known’ are ambiguous terms, for there is a difference between what is prior and better known in the order of being and what is prior and better known to man. I mean that objects nearer to sense are prior and better known to man; objects without qualification

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

“One important key to Dr. Carus’s opinions is the recognition of the fact that, like many other philosophers, he is a nominalist tinctured with realistic opinions.” ~Peirce “I look upon Mr. Peirce as an extreme nominalist, or, if he prefers it, as a nominal realist soaked with nominalistic

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Dear list: *Jerry*: I will take “Peirce at any stage of his life” for 100, Alex. *Alex*: The answer is, “label any philosophical stance with which he disagreed as "nominalistic." *Jerry*: What is “Something Peirce would never say or do because fallibilism”? *Alex*: That’s right.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear list: Oh, I now remember who asked to be informed when he was acting a nominalist. For nominalists do this: “The Nominalists flatly denied the existence of anything but the concrete. For them, a universal name was in itself a mere “flatus voices”, according to Ockam’s famous

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear list: Someone previously asked how to know when he is being a nominalist. I forget who. To determine this, we could simply look to its effectiveness for “settling metaphysical disputes that otherwise might be interminable.” “*Questioner*: What, then, is the *raison d’etre *of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Dear list: Disputation/eristic and not dialectic: *Gor.* And if the last is false, is the first false? *Soc.* It follows. *Gor.* If, then, black is white, does it follow, that black is not smooth? *Soc.* It does. *Gor.* Black-white is not smooth? *Soc.* What do you mean? *Gor.* Can any dead

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between

ented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality. ~*How to Make Our Ideas Clear* *Hth,* *Jerry Rhee* On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 3:35 PM, CLARK GOBLE <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Jan 14, 2017, at 8:15 AM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between

ieves the chief rival to rhetoric is philosophy." ~Seth Benardete, *The Rhetoric of Morality and Philosophy: Plato’s Gorgias and Phaedrus * Best, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon- I fully agree. I think the search for '

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Dear list: Why not consider instead: “What do you make to be the meaning of "George Washington"?” Or “a statue of a soldier on some village monument, in his overcoat and with his musket…” For if the names are of “a *type*, or *form*, to which objects, both those that are externally

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Dear list: In “Peirce's Pragmatism: The Design for Thinking”, Chiasson follows up a section on Scotus, (thisness, whatness, universals, general laws, qualitative essences) with the following: “Do you understand what Peirce meant when he said that ‘almost every proposition of ontological

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Jon, list: Jon, list: Consider this usage selected by Kennedy: “Peirce showed that historians are in error when they talk of judging testimony by balancing probabilities because “in a scientific sense, there are no ‘probabilities’ to be judged.” Probability, Peirce wrote, “is the ratio of

Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theism and Peircean Cosmology

Dear list: Ha, what a great statement! “ In any case, my religious tradition does not call itself "Lutheran" because of the man's politics.” In like manner, we should ask ourselves, For what reasons do we call ourselves Peirceans? “Man is essentially a social animal: but to be social

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: [biosemiotics:9216] biological theory ... towards semiotics

of the activities of a living organism are of such a kind that they tend to produce a certain characteristic end-result.” Best, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > John, List, > > Thanks for this excellent post. I've taken the libert

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Dear list: drat! I lost my opportunity to say, "I hope your suggestions may bring a whole crop of fruit". oh well, "the jerk store called... Best, Jerry R On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear John, Thomas, list: > > &g

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Dear John, Thomas, list: To those who propose putting forth philosophical definitions for old terms, Peirce gives a kind of snarky response in “Mr. Peterson’s Proposed Discussion”. And yet, despite his awareness that *Symbols grow**… Omne symbolum de symbolo.* (7)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Dear list: I should narrow down my question: For what reasons should a scientist, who believes in the realness of natural laws, also value that of absolute chance? Are there any examples? Best, Jerry R On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear J

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Dear John, list: Would anyone care to share their thoughts on what is meant by Absolute Chance? Thanks in advance, Jerry R On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > > On Dec 5, 2016, at 7:05 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 11/29/2016 2:57 PM,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Dear list: I found this article that clarifies the position Peirce would take. Well, if you take this in context of *Man's Glassy Essence* and *The Logic of Relatives:* “I look upon Mr. Peirce as an extreme nominalist, or, if he prefers it, as a nominal realist soaked with nominalistic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Gary, list: I don’t know the context but on its own, I disagree with what you quote, “There is no "answer" or "solution." because “*The only moral evil is not to have an ultimate aim*.” ~Peirce, *EP2:202* That is, there is a break in common sense whereas commonsense is whole.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

: but to be social is one thing, to be gregarious is another: I decline to serve as bellwether. * Hth, Jerry R On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Stefan, Ben, list: > > > > You say > > *there stands the word ‘democracy’

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” ~John 14:6-7 Best, Jerry Rhee one two three… On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:32 PM, sb <peirc...@semiotikon.de> wrote: > Ben, List > > wow, that is interesting! Thanks! > > Also these quotes from the fixation of b

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

quod nempe ex hac talia deducitur, quæ respondent > phænomenis, et satisfaciunt omnibus difficultatibus, quæ hac parte in re, > et in iis quæ de ea apparent, occurrebant." > > > > > > Am 24. November 2016 02:11:57 MEZ, schrieb Jerry Rhee <jerryr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

a physical object is not yet clear. But that the principles are three, and in what sense, and the way in which each is a principle, is clear.” ~Aristotle, *Physics* “We naturally choose three as the smallest number which will answer the purpose.” ~Peirce, *Logic of Relatives* Hth… Best,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Dear list: Here are some quotes by Leo Strauss next to one by Peirce: “The best republic is the ideally perfect, the second the best on earth, the third the best *ex hypotheseos,* under the circumstances. Freedom is the *hypothesis* or condition of democracy.” ~Some Consequences of Four

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Dear list: I thought the point of pragmaticism was simply to make meanings clear. “Now there are *three grades of clearness in our apprehensions of the meanings* of words. The first consists in the connexion of the word with familiar experience… The second grade consists in the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Stefan, Edwina, list: Great questions! Yes, Edwina, what is the icon, the index and the symbol? Best, Jerry R On Sat, Nov 19, 2016 at 5:35 PM, sb wrote: > Edwina, > > i would be really interested how you tackled such a complex theoretical > concept empirically. > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Dear Gary, list: You said: Meanwhile, can anyone on the list offer some Peirce quotations which might help quickly clarify his views on democracy? Here is one…or two…or perhaps three: “The best republic is the ideally perfect, the second the best on earth, the third the best *ex

Re: [PEIRCE-L] On esoteric and exoteric Peirce

of the matter at hand. Best, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:09 AM, <kirst...@saunalahti.fi> wrote: > Jerry, > > Instead of jumping into conclusions (iterpretations) on what CSP meant, > let's (as a first step) take closer look on what you did in the act of > writing y

Re: [PEIRCE-L] On esoteric and exoteric Peirce

as consisting > of WORDS, even chains of words. > > Catching a sense of irony always needs the contexts. Without a sense fot > that anyone gets lost in the web of quotes. > > Best, > > Kirsti Määttänen > > > > > > > > Jerry Rhee kirjoitti 13.11

[PEIRCE-L] On esoteric and exoteric Peirce

wishes, Jerry Rhee PS. If we were to bring into this conversation an old one, then CP 5.189 over CP 5.402 because illation and *consequentia, * which is surprising, for *“*a *consequentia* is an argument (A, therefore B), not a conditional proposition (if A, then B).” ~Francesco Bellucci

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Nov 9, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > George Herbert Spencer? What was I thinking? I meant George Spencer Brown. > Edwina > > > > - > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List"

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Super-Order and the Logic of Continuity (was Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology))

Jon, list: Thank you for that. I dare you all to think about this conversation NOT in context of CP 5.189. one two three... C A B... icon index symbol... Firstness Secondness Thirdness... esthetics ethics logic spiritedness desire reason... name definition essence... Father Son Spirit...

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >