Clark, list:
I like your warnings. And I like that they are coming from you and not
me.
___
Jeff said:
I do think there are a spectrum of different approaches and aims that might
guide our engagement with the ideas and arguments Peirce was developing.
No, there is one and only o
matic maxim.
With best wishes,
Jerry Rhee
On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
> Jeff D., Gary R., list,
>
> I assume we're discussing what Peirce thought, rather than what we
> variously may think for our own parts. Peirce spells out the difference
> between
Eugene, Edwina, list:
If we affix our gaze upon the wet lawn and muse about what it means, what
do you think we, as a community, will say?
What if instead we immanate about *quid sit deus*; "What would God be?"
one two three...Apollo Themis Zeus...mind body soul
Best,
Jerry Rhee
O
Helmut, list:
Void is a place/interval with nothing in it. That conclusion is reached by
syllogism.
Best,
Jerry R
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Edwina, list,
> I dont remember, where I have got the term "Horror Vacui" from, but I
> think it means, that the nature
":-- O wonderful being, and to what are you looking?”
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Nice outline, Helmut. But I'll quibble with a few terms.
>
> For example, your theist claims that 'an intelligent system is a pers
hypothesis up
next to *this* argumentation involving the Father, Son and Spirit and see
how humbling your response is against that made by a different community of
inquirers, *viz*., *us*.
For instance, what is plausible about Jesus being the Son of God?
With best wishes,
Jerry Rhee
On Fri,
-strauss.html?_r=0
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Jeffrey - I have a few problems with your analysis. I'll comment below:
> - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Brian Downard" <
> jeffrey.down...@nau.edu>
>
ters difficulty with making perfect
statements.
Yet, one is expected to begin with an earnest attempt at applying the
scientific method, which includes not only the adoption of the habit of
mind but also the putting forth a clear statement of the hypothesis.
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Tue, Sep
it Tolstoy who said that 'wrong does not cease to be wrong just
> because the majority shares in it'...
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jerry Rhee
> *To:* Clark Goble
> *Cc:* Peirce-L
> *Sent:* Monday, September 19, 2016 2:52 PM
> *S
hod, then we’re right
back to arguing with no course for how to determine a good hypothesis from
a bad one.
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
> Clark- thanks for your very nice outline of
yman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
>
>> Jon, list:
>>
>>
>>
>> You said:
>>
>> “ I find it rather implausible that a work entitled "A Neglected
>
Jon, list:
You said:
“ I find it rather implausible that a work entitled "A Neglected Argument
for the Reality of God" was somehow intended to be more about "the
*attitude *and *method *from which all decisions of importance to the
conduct of a life should begin," such that the content of the h
Hi Ben, list:
What do you take as the thing that determines it in Chiasson's essay, then?
Thanks,
Jerry R
On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Ben Novak wrote:
> Clark, Jon, Jerry, Edwina, List:
>
>
> Perhaps this essay can help in finding what Peirce meant by speaking of
> this "theory of thinki
Edwina, list:
You said:
*until that I-O relation does indeed correlate with the R-O Relation? Isn't
this what Peirce meant by eventually arriving at the truth?*
Yes.
So, where is this object?
On this list, it's what Peirce said.
But you said different than what Jon said about what Peirce said.
B
Dear Edwina, Gary, list:
It would surprise me more if one did *not* get angry when truth about
interpretation is at stake.
Why do people get angry and fight about metaphors?
One two three…*thumos, eros, logos*…
Best,
Jerry R
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> G
Dear list:
Everyone owns earnestness.
But different ones claim Truth, of which contradictions imply only one.
And who claims historicism and who esotericism?
What decides it; the moon or the finger?
…and so goes the world…
Best,
Jerry R
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
in its own thread. Besides, CP 6.469 is
> part of the article that is supposed to be the subject of *this *thread.
>
> JR: Hth, Jerry R
>
>
> Nidn,
>
> Jon S.
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
>
>> Dear list:
>>
>>
>
Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
>
>> Dear list:
>>
>> Jon, you said,
>> "At least w
Dear list:
Jon, you said,
"At least we agree that everyone should read Peirce for themselves and draw
their own conclusions."
This is NOT what is meant by Peircean intention. You have no farther than
to look into his disagreement with James to know this. In fact, this is of
such a problematic n
Dear list:
What I find comedic and tragic about this whole situation is that while
claiming truth about interpreting Peirce, you continue to ignore the ground
that is put in front of us.
How many different ways are there of interpreting CP 5.189, the logic of
abduction? There is your exactn
, The City and Man
Can we be good without God?
Can we be just without Nature?
Can we know truth without revelation?
Can we recognize the Beautiful without a clear conception of the Divine?
What would God be?
Hth,
Jerry Rhee
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> B
Hi Ben, Harold, Jon, Edwina, Gary list:
This whole business of *one two three; one three two; Firstness Secondness
Thirdness; Firstness Thirdness, Secondness; what is First or Second when
speaking of an object *appears irresolvable. Everyone has his/her own pet
theory for which it ought to be a
Ben,
What is Anselm's ontological argument, for it is my opinion that someone
from Missouri is expected to know it.
If I, being from Missouri, is not expected to know about Anselm's
ontological argument, then why are you imposing the question on us, which
includes me?
Best,
Jerry R
On Tue, Sep
?
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Stephen C. Rose
wrote:
> Inevitably if Peirce is to become a basis for a zeitgeist or understanding
> -- that we no longer live in a binary world destined for inevitable
> conflict -- he will be simplified. That is as certain as
Clark, list:
Thank you for bringing attention back to the issue of indubitable belief
with:
“I confess I had to look it up even though it’s right down my alley."
And thus, knowledge grows from more to more; symbols grow, meanings grow.
Also, for the following that illustrates one difficulty
here are journals;
>> there are books; there are conferences devoted to these issues. Google
>> 'biosemiotics' on your own.
>>
>> And I recall a Nobel Laureate in physics, in a conference, declaring that
>> Peircean semiotics was a vital analytic framework fo
support this.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -----
> *From:* Ben Novak
> *To:* Jerry Rhee
> *Cc:* Edwina Taborsky ; Helmut Raulien
> ; Jon Alan Schmidt ;
> Peirce-L
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2016 6:16 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theor
might even be a *best*. But where is
the proof for a community?
“That the settlement of opinion is the sole end of inquiry is a very
important proposition. It sweeps away, at once, various vague and erroneous
conceptions of proof.”
Hth,
Jerry Rhee
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Edwina
Jon, list:
This is the bizarre one:
- Representation is (only) Thirdness.
Where, exactly, does Peirce state this?
Give me the name, date and serial number!
:)
Best,
Jerry R
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Gary- enjoy your weekend. Hope the weather cools down a bi
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
> There are numerous ways to interpret text.
>
> Yet, by placing things next to each other, certain things pop out.
>
>
>
> Consider from *Timaeus* (26e, 27c) the following:
>
>
>
> SOCRATES: And
abduction we ought to take?
Thank you for any contribution.
Best,
Jerry Rhee
-
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, s
At the end of inquiry, it will be osi because it’s the natural way of
seeing things as they are.
Oh, and what organizes the categories as a proposition? CP 5.189.
If not this, *which*? Don’t be a vegetable.
Best,
Jerry Rhee
“We must state whether it belongs to one or to different scien
ourse much better elaborated
> than I would be able to do) by the book "Thinking evil" by Bettina
> Stangneth.
> Best,
> Helmut
>
> 09. September 2016 um 04:10 Uhr
> "Jerry Rhee" wrote:
>
>
> Jon, list:
>
>
>
> They are all consistent.
>
Jon, list:
They are all consistent.
What is analogical reasoning but saying one thing in terms of another?
essence and esse
Subject and predicate
Father and Son
Non-being and being
Agent and patient
First and Second
ens originarium and ens necessarium
theologico-physico
name and de
, and will strive to be
the the worthy knight and champion of her from the blaze of whose splendors
he draws his inspiration and his courage.”
“*Let us acknowledge**, **then**, that **we have a preamble*.”
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:21 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote:
>
> On Sep 8,
y not
smart. Still, I understand this is a Peirce list and he was a prodigious
writer, has an inherently coherent system and hard enough to understand in
its own.
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Jon, list
>
> My use of the term 'unive
Hi everyone,
Here is a general expression of human nature:
MENO: When you have told me what I ask, I will tell you, Socrates.
SOCRATES: A man who was blindfolded has only to hear you talking, and he
would know that you are a fair creature and have still many lovers.
MENO: Why do you think so?
(even in spite of me) because it is right opinion and
movement is preferable to constant generation and confusion.
Besides, if not this, *which*?
Hth,
Jerry Rhee
ps:
Existence is Second. Reality is the object to which the truth points.
Truth is Third. At the end of inquiry, it is
Hi list:
The "theory of the nature of thinking"...one or many?
How would you know and how would you convince others?
*“But if there is something which is capable of moving things or acting on
them, but is not actually doing so, there will not necessarily be movement;
for that which has a potency
the subject…”
Aristotle, *Metaphysics Book XII*
Hth,
Jerry Rhee
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> List:
>
> While searching through the *Collected Papers* for all instances of the
> word "habit," which I anticipate will be the next concept
Hi list:
Just to get ahead of some future problems when discussing claims of italic
*nature*:
“The primeval notion of “custom” or “way” is split up into the notions of
“nature,” on the one hand, and “convention,” on the other. The distinction
between nature and convention, between *physis* and *
Gary f., Bev, Jon, Edwina, list:
Gary:
Defining the Beautiful is an older problem than Kant. The Beautiful also
has to do with the eternal, the immortal. For instance, Socrates was ugly
but he was Beautiful. God is Beautiful. The Beautiful is the object of
desire, the object of desire for
Jon,
I'm curious. What would you have if you find the answers to those
questions?
it appears even if you find the right answers, there'll still be the
problem of communicating it correctly to others, since we won't even
recognize its correctness. If you know it just to know
it...well...*shrug*.
high in the light of the low.* In doing the latter one necessarily
distorts the high, whereas in doing the former one does not deprive the low
of the freedom to reveal itself as fully as what it is.”
Best,
Jerry Rhee
PS:
You said:
"i.e. it’s signs all the way down."
The little old
Hi all,
“:*— O wonderful being, and to what are you looking?*”
Plato, *Laws*, Book XII
…on *objective* mind and the many interpretants
Hth,
Jerry Rhee
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> Edwina, List:
>
> EW: Peirce outlined the three common answe
dea starts in mind and not
matter, since matter is common to us but the idea is only yours and not
mine?
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Edwina Taborsky
wrote:
> Dear Soren:
>
> Thank you for your comments - I agree; I think that the debate on 'which
> is fir
ume you are joking. I meant what I wrote. The Sign doesn't
> have a 'soul' and I've no idea what a soul is.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jerry Rhee
> *To:* Edwina Taborsky
> *Cc:* Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce-L
> ; Gary
Edwina, list:
When you say, “I do want to emphasize that when I refer to Sign, I refer
not to the Representamen, but to the Relations the sign/representamen has
with the objects and interpretants.”
Do you mean in other words, “not the mere body of the Sign, which is not
essentially such, but,
Hi all,
Absolute Being = Final Interpretant
Best,
Jerry R
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Gary Richmond
wrote:
> Jon, list,
>
> I hope some of the points I made were helpful in sorting this all out. You
> wrote:
>
> JS:
> Given the association of both virtuality and interpretants with Thir
Gary, list:
I am just now getting into Book X of the *Laws*, Plato. I am not certain
what I will find there. However, based on my previous reading of Plato and
of Peirce, of this I am certain:
I will cite whatever I find in Book X as my apologia.
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 3:47
erent tendency in it. That is, if the idea has vitality. The concept
that habit-taking precedes law is also discussed in Plato. Clearly, your
habit is to read CP5.189 as a historicist.
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:39 AM, Gary Richmond
wrote:
> Stephen, Jon, Jerry R, list,
&g
Father of Jesus is ethics”. I would, however,
say “The Father of Jesus is esthetics” because Jesus follows the Father
just as ethics follows esthetics, which is a First. But Jesus and ethics,
they are Second. They are Second because Seconds follow Firsts.
And to all a good night!
Jerry Rhee
On
hing instead of this ambiguous thing with no name, except
for what is surprising and suspicious?
One, two, three…chance, law, habit-taking.
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
> Jerry R., List:
>
> " In the syllogism in which God is the first, th
tal. If beautiful, then we start
with the divine. The Divine is First. How great will that be for
resolving political action?
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> Jerry R., List:
>
> My first question is the one that I acknowledged you alr
second. If you decide to wade in those waters, you may
find the third.
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Gary Richmond
wrote:
> Stephen, list,
>
> You wrote: I now see my work as the articulation of an explicit daily
> exercise. It has more to do with CSP's tho
present as the moving *soul* in all philosophical procedure…”
one, two, three… Beauty, Goodness, Truth…Feeling, Reaction,
Mediation…spiritedness, desire, reason…
Hth,
Jerry Rhee
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Stephen C. Rose
wrote:
> It seems clear to me that there is probably no way
nfusion." This is not one of them.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Jerry Rhee
Helmut, list:
“This has happened before”…
“…it is of the essence of civil society that private judgment be replaced
by public judgment...In other words, the transformation of natural man into
a citizen is a problem coeval with society itself, and therefore society
has a continuous need for at
There are 66 different meanings of "sign". So, where is context? Not your
context, not my context but *our* context. Not so abstract as not to be
real...
Best,
Jerry R
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Gary Richmond
wrote:
> Edwina, Helmut, list,
>
> As I have in the past, I must once again s
“…. First Stage of Inquiry… Second Stage of Inquiry… inquiry enters upon
its Third Stage…”
The surprising fact, “capital First, Second, Third and not first,” is
observed.
But if One, Two, Three were true…
Besides, if not this, which?
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Edwina
Hi all,
I like what Clark has to say. I would also include, a computer
model/representamen of what is implied of observation X.
Best,
J
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 12:01 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote:
>
> On Aug 18, 2016, at 10:32 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> Could you please elaborate on what you
Jerry: “Abduction is First, Deduction is Second, Induction is Third”.
Jon/Edwina/Helmut: “No! It’s not!”
James: “Any surprise involves a resistance to accepting the fact”
Jon: “The formulation of a hypothesis occurs second”
Hypothesis:
The surprising fact, “one, two, three” is obs
primarily with Thirdness
> (Assurance of Form), and induction corresponds primarily with Secondness
> (Assurance of Experience); so the sequence of the three stages of inquiry
> is not aligned with the category names, either.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansa
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> What ordinality, Jerry?
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
>
>> Jon,
>>
>> Is the ordinality there, too?
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Jon Alan Sc
Jon,
Is the ordinality there, too?
Jerry
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> Right--like I said up-front, CP 5.189 is pithy and helpful; but like I
> said later, CP 6.469 is a bit clearer and more complete.
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:40 PM, Jerry
R., List:
>
> I agree that the two passages are describing the same thing, the abductive
> form of inference; hence the subject title. My suggestion is simply that
> CP 6.469 is a bit clearer and more complete than CP 5.189.
>
> Jon
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Jerry R
han
the high in the light of the low.* In doing the latter one necessarily
distorts the high, whereas in doing the former one does not deprive the low
of the freedom to reveal itself as fully as what it is.” ~Strauss
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>
Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
>
>> Hi Jon, all:
>>
>> I call it B but there is
Edwina,
Many authors have interpreted Peirce's ultimate aim/growth of concrete
reasonableness/his *summum bonum*. I would recommend, Potter, Parker,
Sorenson and Thellefsen, among many others...
I think a good place to start in Peirce is with the question, "What does
right reasoning consist in?"
Hi Jon, all:
I call it B but there is no B, just like there is no B in the indeterminate
dyad. But there is surprise and suspect, just as there is understanding.
These are the feelings and thoughts that affect the habit of expectation of
the *inquisiturus*.
That is, I simply take them to be iden
Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
>
>> Jon:
>>
>>
>&g
ense to it. Critical Common Sense says, if it is good
enough, then why not this? If not this as best, then which?
http://storiesforpreaching.com/i-sent-you-a-rowboat/
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
> Jon, Edwina, Ben, List:
>
>
>
> Again, than
nother
better.
So, if not this, which?
“And what other can we find that will be better than this?
*How or where shall we find another if we abandon this*?”
Is it necessary? Is a preamble necessary?
With best wishes,
Jerry Rhee
On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 12:25 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
&
of reasons we are
giving for the kind of assertions we are making (Why C? Why A? Why C in
combination with A?). We can then make a group determination on how to
proceed.
I hope that’s a clear response…
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
>
g. It's about
> what Peirce said. You claim that he made a certain assertion - and we just
> need the actual textual reference for your claim.
>
> Shouldn't be that hard to find the actual text.
>
> Edwina
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Jerry Rhee
&g
e chance topics of discourse.
*Let us acknowledge, then, that we have a preamble*.”
Let us acknowledge then, that CP 5.189 is the best form of argument.
One, two, three…chance, law, habit-taking…C, A, B…CP 5.189
”If the owner only knew how to use his great and noble possession, how
happy would h
all we find another if we abandon this?”
That is, I had hoped that you would apply the method of the nature of the
best to the issue of presenting a concise and sufficient statement of
abduction based on your own standards, criteria and experiences.
Perhaps that was asking too much, for why else
, withstand me might and main, that I may not
deceive you as well as myself in my enthusiasm…”
~ Plato, *Phaedo*
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
> Jerry R., List:
>
> I hesitate to jump in here, especially since I am currently on vacation
> with
and semiosis?
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 4:34 PM, wrote:
> Now, Jerry, don’t get angry. If you want to get a definite sense of
> Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness, it is necessary to think along with
> Peirce’s argument as he introduces and uses these terms in his argum
Dear Gary f., list:
“I do not understand you” is the phrase of an angry man.
Your most recent utterance is confusing to me, as interpreter, because you
utter that signs and objects can each be first, second and third, although
*this* cannot be a sign and object at the same time- that they hav
erve
the changes which take place in them during *infinite ages*” (Plato, Laws).
For what reason is CP 5.189 the normative form of abduction, the form to
which abduction ought to conform? I would recommend thinking through that
question.
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 2:15 PM,
talking about, or at least think
> they do.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 11-Aug-16 17:33
>
>
>
> Hi Gary f., Jeff list:
>
>
>
> I was writing out my thoughts before reading Jeff's nice contri
of pragmatism is respectable enough; but the *more conscious
adoption of it as lanterna pedibus* in the discussion of dark questions,
and the elaboration of it into a method in aid of philosophic inquiry…
Let us acknowledge, then, that we have a preamble.
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016
housand things.
sign, object, interpretant…object, sign, interpretant…a return to a natural
horizon…
An (first), other (second), medium (third), and not
other (second), An (first), medium (third).
That is, if not this, *which*?
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 1:45 PM, Jeffrey B
Gary f, list:
What do you mean by “Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness *are not ordinal
concepts *in Peirce’s phenomenology”, please?
Best
Jerry R
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Gary f., list,
>
> I have not read it thoroughly yet, but here an example for a term/
?
What’s a horizon? What’s a natural horizon?
Hth,
Jerry Rhee
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 11:24 AM, wrote:
> Peirceans,
>
>
>
> In a reply to one of Helmut’s posts last week, I quoted a paragraph from
> one of Peirce’s Lowell lectures. When I took a closer look at the contex
, and throughout the purely physical world…” ~Peirce
http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/models/Honeycomb
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 4:16 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote:
>
> On Aug 5, 2016, at 2:13 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
> I have not yet understood this, because if consc
Hi everyone,
Here is something more of which to say about consciousness and mind:
"The absolute beginning, accordingly, is the *Idea*..
The procedure made from this beginning is the systematic exposition of the
world of Nature and Spirit, as manifestation, realization, and
actualization of Go
Helmut, Gary, list:
Many questions in here...or one.
Helmut, I'm curious
“The dream was bidding me do what I was already doing, in the same way that
the competitor in a race is bidden by the spectators to run when he is
already running.”
what’s already in this ox’s mind?
How about already i
Stephen, list:
You said, “Try explaining to Isaac Newton, or CS Peirce, that they were
wasting their time trying to frame things in terms of an axiomatic
framework... *Peirce may not have spelt it out*….”
_
Given the situation: "I do not understand you," is the phrase of an angry
man”, in
Dear Eugene, Gary, list:
Thank you for your contributions.
In the passages given, Moore uses “religion” like Gary uses “science”; not
as true religion and science but “dogmatic religion” and “didactic
science”- something incomplete to be held up against some other higher to
emphasize a low wa
is worth having; that we have reached the limit of
measurement and construction.
With best wishes,
Jerry Rhee
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Clark Goble wrote:
> (Sorry, I accidentally sent that last post while still working on it. So
> take it in terms of working out ideas and forg
wholeness/completeness directly treats the nonage
problem.
I mean, what does one expect from a Beautiful example of a normative
method, anyways?
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 8:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> Stefan, List:
>
> You wrote ...
>
> It would be much
ess, truth...
icon, index, symbol...
esthetics, ethics, logic...
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 6:23 AM, sb wrote:
> Jerry, List,
>
> thanks for pointing back to the beginning of the thread.
>
> We always think that the scientific method, if there is *one*, is a
> extre
you carefully consider the question of pragmatism, *is it* nothing else
than the question of the logic of abduction?
Perhaps it is our conceit that there is only one way of understanding a
phenomenon…
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 12:49 PM, sb wrote:
> Gary F.,
>
> maybe
ism". It
helps to reign in the multiplicity.
I would also ask the reader to examine what is being examined when asking
"why contrite fallibilism". That is, if not contrite fallibilism, which?
Best,
Jerry Rhee
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Jerry, li
Hi sb, all;
one, two, three...*pathos*, ethos, *logos*...
Best,
Jerry R
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:22 PM, sb wrote:
> Gary, John, Olga,
>
> what is this thing "science" you are talking about? Do you mean the
> sociological phenomen or the idea of science? I think these two are a bit
> mixed up
considered
equivalent to the three categories, except it is framed and presented
differently.
That Plato was aware can simply be gleaned from Laws, Republic and Timaeus.
“*And very unlike a divine man would he be, who is unable to count **one*
*, **two**, **three”*
*Hth,*
*Jerry Rhee*
On Mon, Ju
problem of grudge is justice. Is it possible to analyse all political
> problem patterns and values like this? Then pragmaticism might be able to
> deliver a quite valuable manual for politicians. Also about problem
> patterns like xenophopia / tribalism: Avoidable? Solvable?
> Best,
> Hel
Helmut,
I suppose that is why it is a political problem...something consciously to
be adopted for discussion of dark questions...the light to guide our
researches...something befitting to belong to the ancestry of pragmaticism.
best,
Jerry Rhee
On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Helmut Raulien
401 - 500 of 650 matches
Mail list logo
