g himself are likely to be thought even more *gauche* than they
really are; and they are bad enough at best.
Pretty much all he can do toward rendering this writing perspicuous, beyond
giving concrete examples whenever he can discover the need of them, is as
far as possible always to use each word in a single sense. (
disagree?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 1:24 PM wrote:
> Jeff, JAS, Gary R, list,
>
> Having said all I have to say a
d was missing from what you actually posted, so I
will hold off on further comment and ask you first to provide the quote
with the formatting that you intended.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAl
relation of _ to _," which
therefore signifies the Proposition's Interpretant. In fact, this is
precisely the example that Peirce gave elsewhere of a sentence in which the
continuous predicate is expressed entirely by *syntax*.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
below
>
> On Tue 21/05/19 3:12 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> 1] ET: I don't think that these discussions on religion and logic have
> anything to do with bridging the chasm between religion and science. They
> have no scientific
nal
premiss, if every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself, then
it *necessarily *follows that the Universe is determined by an Object other
than itself.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchm
e creation of the universe,
which ... is going on today and never will be done" (CP 1.615, EP 2:255;
1903).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Tue, May
ot;Do not block the way of
inquiry," and share the desire that you and others have expressed to apply
his thought more broadly--but hopefully to *clarify *it; i.e., make
*our *ideas,
*Peirce's *ideas, and the *differences *between them clear.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professiona
onsider that putting them together leads to a false
> conclusion -especially if we differ on the meaning of the terms [Sign].
>
> Edwina
>
> On Mon 20/05/19 11:28 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: All dogs are animals/Al
ot; to be the constituents of the third Universe of
Signs/Necessitants.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 10:56 AM John F So
e any different? Are you perhaps
suggesting that *entia rationis* are the *only *non-existent Realities that
are knowable?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Su
the
conclusion, as well.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:04 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> JAS, list
>
> The probl
ing actions of semiosis. Therefore,
> neither the DO nor the DI can be understood as fully separate from the
> semiosis function.
>
> 4] We will have to continue to disagree with regard to the ten classes of
> Signs, which I clearly see as his analysis of the Sign as an
> irreducib
of God's, we can catch a fragment of His Thought, as it
were. (CP 6.502; c. 1906)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 2:01 PM John
once*--used "Sign"
for a triad.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 7:31 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> ALL representame
ws necessarily* from certain basic tenets of Peirce's
Semeiotic. Someone who is unfamiliar with or takes exception to the latter
will obviously not find my approach even remotely persuasive.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Lay
93; 1905). He never--*not
once*--used "Sign" for a triad, since a triad is always a *relation*, while
a Sign is always a *correlate*.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/
r a *part
*of God.
ET: I recall Peirce's outline of the emergence of our universe [1.412] and
the description is most clearly an action of self-organization.
No, it is not; and even if it were, Peirce later described that account as
"faulty," as I discuss in my online paper
<https://tidsskrift.dk/s
h no basis in anything that I have actually advocated.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 5:32 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> JAS list
n the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the
Sole Creator of every content of them without exception" (R 843:15; 1908).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSch
nse?
Yes, I will try to keep this in mind going forward--and also try to refrain
from further theological nitpicking accordingly. :-)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
upporting argumentation that I have now
presented, expounded, and defended at considerable length. Taking my own
statements out of context is just as inappropriate as doing so with
Peirce's statements.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lu
s. Calling the
Universe a Symbol and an Argument (both singular) does not in any way *reduce
*its complexity, but rather *recognizes *its complexity--an Argument
is the *most
complex* kind of Sign that there is! Nevertheless, like any other Sign, it
must be determined by an Object other than
about the
nature of semeiosis, the definition of "Representamen," and whether "Sign"
designates a triad or a correlate are well-documented; so we need not
rehash them.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.c
s with any deductive argumentation, anyone who rejects the
conclusion is *rationally required* to deny at least one of the
premisses--each of which Peirce *explicitly *affirmed.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.Li
mother of Jesus, who was God.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:16 PM Gary Richmond
wrote:
> Mary, List,
>
> You wrote:
&g
ubordinate
to the Father in His *humanity*--not in His *divinity*, as the Word. He is
"God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being
of one substance with the Father, by Whom all things were made" (Nicene
Creed). All three Persons are "coeternal and c
My
position is that it is not a matter of whether there *is *such evidence
either way, but rather how one *evaluates *the evidence. "A Neglected
Argument" expresses one sense in which *Peirce *affirmed that there
*is *empirical
(i.e., experiential) evidence for the Reality of God.
Regards,
scripts, I suspect that you
and I can legitimately say that we have gotten to know him quite well by
now. How is that possible? Why would God be any different?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonA
among us, and we have seen his glory,
glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth ... For
from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was
given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (John
1:14-17; ESV)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt
to our thinking of features of each
Universe as purposed; and this will stand or fall with the hypothesis. Yet
a purpose essentially involves growth, and so cannot be attributed to God.
Still it will, according to the hypothesis, be less false to speak so than
to represent God as purposeless. (CP 6.466, EP
that the *logos **was* God
(rather than a Demiurge or blind agent); and John 1:3 affirms that all
things were *made* by the *logos*.
I look forward to seeing what else you have to say!
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.Lin
position that the entire Universe is *not *a Sign.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 2:41 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> JAS - Ag
"a creator conceived as in organic connection with the
creation," rather than a "creator from whom the creation is conceived as
separated."
- "[T]he world, or the soul of the world ... either is [God] or is in
God."
In other words, Peirce *did *hold that
according to Peirce, it *is *a Sign, so it *must *have an
external-to-itself Object.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 10:36 AM Edwina
en citing. Moreover, my Semeiotic
Argumentation does not rely on either word; what matters is that every Sign
is determined by an Object *other than itself*--i.e., the Object is
always *external
*to, *independent *of, and *unaffected *by the Sign.
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
P
ret itself.
Sure, but it is not sufficient for the Universe to *determine *itself; an
external Object is *necessary *to determine it.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonA
way to avoid this *deductive *conclusion is to
deny one of the premisses--i.e., claim either that the Universe is
*not *composed
of Signs, or that some Signs *do not* have external Objects, both of which
would be clear and obvious departures from Peirce's stated views.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Ola
s *really *
constant.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 2:29 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <
jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote:
>
imitations of employing *discrete *Signs
to analyze *continuous* semeiosis.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:31 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <
out which
interpretation squares best with *all *of the relevant texts, and as
always, those reading along can decide for themselves.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanS
ach
case, the Sign *conveys knowledge* of the person. And in the second
passage, besides affirming the *transcendence *of God as previously quoted,
Peirce also succinctly explained why he argued for the *Reality *of God,
rather than the *existence *of God.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansa
ly denying
that God is immanent in Nature or the three Universes.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <
ted dots today.
Indeed, and one example of "the many fragmented dots today" is the divide
between science and religion, which Peirce himself conscientiously sought
to bridge. I suspect that he would heartily endorse efforts to develop and
apply his ideas further toward that end.
er, immediately after calling the Universe "a vast representamen,"
Peirce added that it is "a great symbol of God's purpose" (CP 5.119, EP
2:193; 1903)--implying not only that God *has *a purpose, but also that the
entire Universe as a Sign is an *expression *of His purpose.
Regards,
,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:33 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> See my responses below:
>
> On Tue 14/05/19 6:10 PM , Jon Alan Schm
tes
that without *necessary *being (*Ens necessarium*), there would be no being *at
all*. The only absolutely necessary result of a state of utter nothingness
is ... utter nothingness. For the long version, see my online paper
<https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187> in *Signs - Internatio
being interpreted as representing something else in some way, then there is
an effect that it "*would *produce upon any mind upon which the
circumstances should permit it to work out its full effect."
Since you acknowledge your disagreement with Peirce about the entire
Universe having
od as the creator of all three Universes of Experience in the
very first sentence of "A Neglected Argument" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434; 1908),
so that should not be controversial at all.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www
he universe? In what respects might it be in
error about the laws of logic?
How could the Universe *itself*, understood as a Quasi-mind, "be in error
about the laws of logic"? Even if this were possible, given that we
are *within
*the Universe, how could we ever discover and correct such
ature or the three Universes, but
rather its/their "Sole Creator"? Do you simply disagree with him on these
points?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmi
ot; (CP 6.452, EP 2:434; 1908).
Moreover, since truth is the conformity of a Sign to its Object, the Final
Interpretant of the Universe as an Argument--the *ideal* conclusion of the
*continuous* "inferential process" of semeiosis--is *knowledge* of God. In
other words, God's purpose in *utter
, and the
transformation to a subsequent state is always by means of *discrete *steps.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 10:22 PM Jeffrey Brian
ach I've
> been exploring.
>
> It is good, I think, to be clear about one's purpose in making a post. As
> such, I'm making mine more explicit now.
>
> Yours,
>
> Jeff
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> Northern Arizona University
t bullet fatally wounds B."
If we cannot identify a *third *correlate in the relations of surrendering
and acquiring, then I do not see how we can legitimately treat them as *triadic
*relations.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Luthe
lf-defense, or if B is not a human being, or
if the shooting is accidental.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 1:26 PM John F Sowa wrote:
>
*only four* triadic relations, two of giving and two
of exchanging?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 12:42 PM Jeffrey Brian Do
for the purposes of
description and analysis.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 10:44 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <
jeffrey.down...@na
delivery, D, renders T the object of the acquisition of good G;
6th, The payment, P, renders M the object of the receipt of money, R. (CP
7.537; no date)
Why introduce so many additional subjects, rather than sticking with the
four in the initial proposition? Is an essential element somehow
eivable effects on self-controlled habits of
> conduct.
>
> CSP: The deliberately formed, self-analyzing habit--self-analyzing
> because formed by the aid of analysis of the exercises that nourished
> it--is the living definition, the veritable and final logical interpretant.
>
ncept that words can convey
will consist in a description of the habit which that concept is calculated
to produce. But how otherwise can a habit be described than by a
description of the kind of action to which it gives rise, with the
specification of the conditions and of the motive? (CP 5.491, EP 2:4
e
individuals, Spots (words) denote general concepts, and Pegs signify
continuous predicates by which EGs as Propositions *attribute *concepts
(Spots) to individuals (Lines).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.c
ntity--thereby making them *more determinate*.
Those connections are *continuous* predicates, such as "possesses the
character of" or "belongs to the class/collection of" for Spots with one
Peg, and "stands in the relation of" for Spots with two or more Pegs.
Regards,
Jo
Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:39 PM John F Sowa wrote:
> On 5/2/2019 11:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
> > He did not talk about p
ion. They can only ever be the parts of a
*hypothetical* "instantaneous state" of a *real* Argument for the purpose
of analysis--a *Collection *of Propositions connected *only *by co-being,
since leading principles correspond to the transformation rules governing
"Thought-motion" from o
the material either shortly
before or at the same time as his June 22, 1911 letter to Mr. Kehler. This
makes a lot of sense, given his abrupt shift from presenting Cuts as thin
oval lines in R 669 (May 25 - June 2) to instead advocating shading in R
670 (June 7-17).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt -
snapshots of Arguments as captured by EGs on a Sheet of
Assertion.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:20 PM Stephen Curtiss Rose
wrote
ed by a prescinded predicate. However,
these parts are all "creations of thought," *entia rationis*, Perceptual
Judgments rather than Percepts themselves--which is presumably why "A
proposition can be separated into a predicate and subjects in more ways
than one" (NEM 3:885; 190
to the *dyadic* relations between them.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 1:43 PM Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> Dan, List:
>
> No, we are *not* talking about the same thing. It was *impossible* for
> Peirce to be incorrect or even incomplete in this context; he was referring
> to a *l
em. A principle is a "conception" of such a law ... Generally
> speaking, most laws stand and work independently of our conceptions of them.
>
>
> I suppose that we can (and perhaps should) indeed distinguish between a
> leading principle and the *real *law of logic tha
p that he considered
> logical, but in fact not. This has nothing to do with the English verb per
> se, but with the logical structure of any act of giving that includes three
> surface arguments. The point is that Peirce got the *logic* of giving wrong
> - for any language.
>
> D
what symbol we
use to label the Spot for that relation, it will always have *exactly three*
Pegs.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 3
s independent of its
*expression
*in English, or in any other particular language or Sign System.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 1:31 A
cal relations*. We can stipulate the proper linear sequence of words
for this purpose, often supplemented by additional words; or we can adopt
even more iconic Signs, such as Spots with certain arrangements of Pegs
attached to other Spots by means of Lines, all scribed on a two-dimensional
Sheet.
Re
> person to another'. In this situation, the book could be a doll or a
> handkerchief. It's an Object which is being given by Sue to child, and in
> my view, the act of giving, as held by Sue, is the Representamen or
> mediation.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Fri 19/04/19 1:40 PM , Jo
the mind of that person an equivalent sign, or perhaps a more
> developed sign" [2.228 my emphasis]
>
> Without such powers, then, adaptation and evolution of the universe -
> which includes its cognitive powers, would be, I think, impossible.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Fri 19/04/19
o the *Sign*, rather than to either the
Object or the Interpretant--which makes sense, since a book is a medium for
the communication of a text from one person to another, and a Sign is a
medium for the communication of a Form from an Object to an Interpretant.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt -
ect (input) and turn it into something
different (output) that *is *its Interpretant--it *represents *or *stands
for* its Object *to* its Interpretant; i.e., it *mediates between* its
Object and its Interpretant.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosop
of connection between the different subjects as
expressed in the propositional *form* ... when we have carried analysis so
far as to leave only a continuous predicate, we have carried it to its
ultimate elements. (SS 70-72; 1908 Dec 14)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer
sh between a
leading principle and the *real *law of logic that it represents; likewise,
between a continuous predicate and the *real *relation that it represents.
I will give it some thought.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lu
nction. But that is not so. A
> thing is only a thing through its function, there is no thing-in-itself. A
> thing consists (composition) of matter, form, and function.
> Jon, list,
>
> Ok then, I guess, to "involve" does not mean to "contain" in the sense of
> comp
r 2018 or 2019, so perhaps someone on the List who
attended can give us an update, or maybe those participating in tomorrow's
Peirce Monument dedication event in Milford can find out what is happening
these days.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philo
high side, even in cases where there are few
drawings, since many of the manuscripts are written on smaller sheets.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, A
* or *communicating*.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 3:42 PM Helmut Raulien wrote:
> Edwina, Gary, list:
> Here are (from Commens Dict
tatively, but it must be embodied
representatively, that is, in respect to the Form communicated, the Sign
produces upon the Interpretant an effect similar to that which the Object
itself would under favorable circumstances. (EP 2:544n22; 1906)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Pr
ctive, as well, as my comments above reflect.
However, recognizing the *continuity *of Signs does not entail that a Sign
is *itself *a triadic *relation*.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmid
at 4:55 PM Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> Jeff, List:
>
> Please provide specific quotes from "The Logic of Mathematics" (or other
> writings of Peirce) to support your claim that "any sign that is general in
> character ... have the nature of genuine triadic relati
s and
Interpretants are *correlates*, not triadic *relations*, genuine or
otherwise.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:40 AM Jeffre
of them?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 10:03 AM Stephen Curtiss Rose
wrote:
> I think there are no semiotic principles since si
n of a predicate to a subject, is the living
intelligence which is the creator of all intelligible reality, as well as
of the knowledge of such reality. It is the *entelechy*, or perfection of
being. (CP 6.341; 1908)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur
eirce claimed. He did
use "blot" in the 1903 sense at least once in 1906, as Jeff just quoted.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, Apr 14,
17. That is why
each has a letter at the Spot in the middle, where the name of the triadic
relation would go (e.g., "giving," "representing," or "mediating"), and
three Lines of Identity that would be attached to the correlates (e.g.,
giver, gift, and recipient; or Sign,
ng with "graph" and "line," often citing Clifford and
Sylvester as the inventors of these terms that he adapted for EGs. In
other words, his ethics of terminology likely *constrained *him to stick
with them, unless he had a very good reason to deviate from them.
Regards,
e adjectives. Maybe I will just go back to one of my earlier
ideas--color only each Subject Spot (if anything), and consider its single
Peg to represent the corresponding continuous predicate.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran
hat Peirce later suggested for the
respective Universes of Capacities, Actualities, and Tendencies (R
300:74[39]; 1908).
Regards,
Jon S.
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 9:51 PM Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> List:
>
> While preparing what I posted in the "Phaneroscopy and logic" thread
&g
0ceccf607.pdf>
by
Pietarinen). He directly attributed this "discovery" to the innovation of
shading the area within a Cut, at that time with a blue tint. I take it
that he considered Delta to be necessary in order to represent any
*additional* modalities.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schm
acing the historical and philosophical
background against which Peirce was operating. Unfortunately, in my view
Wilson makes some rather fundamental errors when it comes to Peirce's
Semeiotic, most notably in his treatment of the Immediate Object.
Regards
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Profession
.: With projectional reducibility (Jon Awbrey) I have meant this
> involvement, the Peircean irreducibility is about compositional
> reducibility, which all triadic relations dont have.
>
> 4.: I agree
>
> 5.: But how then are objects changed?
>
> Best,
no *distinct *Object-Interpretant relation because the
Interpretant has the *same *relation to the Object that the Sign has
(ibid).
- The Object is *not *changed by *either *the Sign or the Interpretant;
their triadic relation is *asymmetric* (cf. EP 2:544n22; 1906).
Regards,
Jon A
acted upon by its object, from which it is perpetually
receiving the accretions of new signs, which bring it fresh energy, and
also kindle energy that it already had, but which had lain dormant" (EP
2:545n25; 1906).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, A
801 - 900 of 2002 matches
Mail list logo
