Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Skepticism regarding "alien" life in the cosmos

Has he conversed with anyone on this list or known to anyone here? amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > Yes. Abduction and retroduction through wormholes. Peirce has been > abducted too, is still alive (telomers

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Reality and Theism (was Skepticism regarding)

al that we can have >> [ibid] Therefore, my point is that claims based around only deduction >> remain beliefs - held by tenacity or authority - but still, only beliefs. >> >> But are our beliefs only valid - and I mean valid as differentiated from >> 'real' - if they can be empirical

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Skepticism regarding

speaking) is not an insurmountable challenge. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > A wonderful illumination of an unknown (to me) nook. I thought of O.R. > when I was writing but did not have the knowledge whe

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Skepticism regarding

the group also Thank you. S amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:09 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 5/17/2018 9:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > >> My point is simply that reality has all sorts of permutations and that to >> disclude

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Skepticism regarding

re necessary for social stability and > even, our individual psychological health. Again, this does not make our > beliefs 'real'; it makes them socially valid - and, as such, open to change > when the societal need for them changes. > > Edwina > > > > > > On Thu 1

[PEIRCE-L] Skepticism regarding "alien" life in the cosmos

The discussion that has touched Peirce's "anthropomorphism" is interesting in light of Ray Kurzweil's noting the unlikelihood of other human-type life in the universe. https://youtu.be/cBVUdEQXvmc amazon.com/author/stephenrose - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce’s insufficient religious conservatism (was Reconciling science and religion...)

I demur from any attempt to locate Peirce by the various efforts I have seen stated here. I must assume he was not joking when he chose the word agape to modify his philosophy and suggest its direction. Maybe he qualified it. Maybe I have missed mention of it in this discussion. His emphasis on

Re: : [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design

Edwina's point is highly relevant. There is a major distinction between theist as a designation -- it implies essential orthodoxy and the acknowledgment of not only someone supreme but someone who is actively in charge. The notion of mystery (vagueness) or of a sort of coterminous and integrated

Re: : [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design

goodbye And to this day it could be I was mistaken Never knowing if she said her yes or whether it was I. Appropriate for (estranged) Mothers Day. Best, S amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 5:27 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 5/13/2018 2:48 PM, Stephe

Re: : [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design

You forgot Persephone. :) amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 2:38 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > On 5/13/2018 10:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > >> Hey, John - you forgot: Happy Mother's Day. >> >> [mutter, mutter, seethe, fume...if my kids ever did

Re: : [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design

Reality is real and the real ultimately is reality and we know it only in part as Paul inferred but perhaps then face to face. The amount of ink explaining this sans understanding is prodigious. Peirce got religion in a Manhattan Episcopal Church a few blocks from where I sit. He also wandered in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and theism

I meant alien to science. Sorry. And agree Jerry. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > Fox certainly gives us some clues. He approved of divorce -- he left > Unitarianism on that basis. He held there is no

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and theism

Fox certainly gives us some clues. He approved of divorce -- he left Unitarianism on that basis. He held there is no need to see faith as alien to metaphysics. Interesting that Peirce chose him to mention. S amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:10 PM,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design

I agree that Peirce though influenced by religious experience would probably refrain from a detailed argument. He says more than once I think that there should be a synthesis of what has been called metaphysics with science as he understands it. Peirce's influence on theology has not been great as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] The failure of Intelligent Design

There is no necessity to use traditional metaphysical language to substantiate what Jon has suggested. Stephen asks interesting questions. I submit that we render to Mystery the inference that there is a reason for all that is and that we are not wrong to assume that intelligence is involved. In

[PEIRCE-L] The Stillest Hour Three #abbasway

Religion is a partial artifact Philosophy is academy bound Truth and beauty must be found outside Dancing to a universal sound Monism – one – will do for unity Dualism does for writing code Triadic is tuned to reality A silent good its method and its mode May 10, 2018

[PEIRCE-L] Roses are red

I find this uplifting. Peirce: CP 8.194 Cross-Ref:†† “A questioner to whom pragmaticism comes as a novelty will naturally ask, "Do you mean to say that you do not believe there has been any past?" To which the pragmaticist will reply, -- and note well his answer, because it is analogous to the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on the semiotic of music

Songwriting is a way of understanding texts. I spent more than a decade proving this out and published more than 150 examples of Biblical passages turned into songs. This process was a source of Triadic Philosophy, I inferred the values that emerged among the teenagers who learned these songs and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

John, my reply to Jerry sort of thoughts on the idea of two logics. Unfortunately, I replied first to Jerry and managed to lose your note to which I was going to reply. I have been online forever but have no idea what happened. Here is a bit that may explain what I am about. Reality is all. All

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

Apr 14, 2018, at 11:57 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Words, as noted, are often a frail reed but they have a purpose. > > > This is a very clever phrase; I like it very much. > > Do you think that all of academic philosophy (not just the ones that post

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

To speak of good as prior to logic is perhaps wrong. I claim logic is good. Good is only prior to logic in the sense that it represents what metaphysics used to see as the end of things. I see dualisms as eliminated by triadic thought. So, for example, metaphysics and logic coexist triadically.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

a central term in a triadic approach to thinking. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > John F, Steven,List > > On Apr 14, 2018, at 3:19 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > On 4/14/201

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

net> wrote: > On 4/14/2018 12:57 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > >> If logic is actually universal its universality is not served by locking >> its meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is >> achieved fallibly by the use of words to form hypoth

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

Words, as noted, are often a frail reed but they have a purpose. If logic it actually universal its universality is not served by locking its meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is achieved fallibly by the use of words to form hypotheses and then by scientific parsing

Re: [PEIRCE-L] General Agreement

It would be interesting to see what seems to me a convincing response applied to the most ordinary of situations -- something all could relate to. That's not a challenge but a genuine concern. If Semiotics (and Peirce for that matter) is to have the currency that I believe is warranted, we are

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Perplexing

I agree as well. As important may be observations of Deely and others who have already taken large steps in liberating Peirce's thought. I think there is some urgency in establishing a triadic perspective about which there should be little debate. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Apr 7,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] "What is the main challenge for contemporary semiotics?"

urce=post> - Life <https://medium.com/tag/life?source=post> One clap, two clap, three clap, forty? By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out. - [image: Go to the profile of Stephen C. Rose] <https://medium.com/@stephencrose?source=footer_card> Stephen

[PEIRCE-L] Semiotics followup

Semiotics is the only inherently interdisciplinary perspective there is...John Deely PS I think the current discussions have exhibited what might be called a series of dissonant meta-languages. Deely is absolutely right that Semiotics and therefore Peirce should be communicated to the whole

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuine triadic relations

Sounds interesting -- a far piece from NYC but I am hoping you will summarize the argument. It seems to me that one can represent a relationship as triadic without if one can represent a relationship as binary. Icon-index-symbol works as a model for the consideration of a sign. I will be

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

; > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

I do not regard tolerance, helpfulness, democracy, freedom. love and justice as matters of "sentiment" any more than I regard Wittgensteins notion of such talk as unspeakable or nonsensical. I was drawn to Peirce precisely because he opened for me a way of seeing that looking at matters as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

I don't post that often. I study as best I can and when I react it is mainly to Peirce himself. I do not lack interest in Peirce or boast about such. I do not express or feel contempt for anyone. I certainly do not see “triadic philosophy” as meriting more interest, care or attention than Peirce.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

ieved > from http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/degenerate-secondness, > 24.03.2018. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> > *Sent:* 23-Mar-18 20:19 > *To:* Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com>; Peirce Lis

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Bogus is a strong term. I think Edwina is suggesting that we observe the pragmatic maxim. What is the practical effect or substance of a consideration? What is the whole of the matter? What is the end of this particular effort to parse a particular sign? Triadic philosophy asks how what we are

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

What is all experience if not the experience of semiosis (encounter with signs) and how can these be "studied" (semiotics) without words of some other interpretive means? As I parse things, reality (which I insist is all) communicates with us via signs. We, as part of reality, refine signs into

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

This goes far toward substantiating a general observation about discussion or communication in a forum such as this. To be Peircean should not be seen as having the right slant on what he means as having a general relationship to a zeitgeist that is not that difficult to define. It exists on

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

If semiosis is real, a general, true regardless what one thinks or does not think, how can any theory of it be more than an inadequate effort to make sense of the reality it embodies. This is one reason that examples are relevant. If my sign is today's news i can proceed to tell you how I might

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Any talk of signs would benefit from the use of examples. Otherwise, you are constructing hypotheticals with no possibility of arriving at an expressive or actionable result. There's a big world out there. Semiosis has to do with all, everything, as I understand it. amazon.com/author/stephenrose

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Perfect Sign Revisited

The notion of aesthetics as a significant conclusion to ethical reflection, assuming we are talking about finite decisions that will inevitably have some fallibility, is to me revolutionary. Why? Ask yourself how far we have gotten assuming that power alone can bring about good. It was the Bush

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Perfect Sign Revisited

d with > what you already incline to think, there follows one corollary which itself > deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: > > Do not block the way of inquiry. > > > Best, > > Gary R > > > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Perfect Sign Revisited

tion I gave earlier where he said that it was “out of a > contrite fallibilism, combined with a high faith in the reality > of knowledge, and an intense desire to find things out”, that all of his > philosophy had grown (CP 1.13-14). ~Nathan Houser > Hth and Best, > Jerry R > > O

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Perfect Sign Revisited

I think this is a needless and unproductive complexification of matters Peirce himself did not see as important. The term perfect sign does not appear in CP. The term perfect is used in all manner of contexts but less than 100 times. There are over 1000 references to signs but none is preceded by

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

Glad to see this discussion. I noted in something Gene wrote elsewhere a representation of one of P's earliest triadic formulations as I, It and Thou which made me think of Peirce as a predecessor of Martin Buber. In any case, I think this discussion casts light on recent discussions which center

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

Would a one who thinks universally not be a world spectator who agrees with Pinker and others that things actually are improving? No conspiracy there. Peirce might have been in the camp derisively called globalist if it aimed at a world where greed is reined in and agapaic things are not scoffed

Re: [PEIRCE-L] F.E. Abbot

Sounds like we are pretty much agreed, John. I have posited that we have about a century to get things right and that would include leeching science of nominalism and I would add binary proclivities. Peirce and Abbot were staunch realists who are one in moving metaphysics into a configuration that

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

>>> and it is best "to leave [cenoscopic] philosophy to follow perfectly >>> untrammeled a scientific method" (CP 1.644). Thus, once he's >>> concluded this discussion of topics of vital importance being little >>> aided by our vain power of reason (

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

>> moves on in the lectures to follow to discussions of topics of >> scientific importance. >> >> Of course it goes without saying, I'd hope, that the positive results >> of scientific inquiry, for example, new technologies, may be applied >> to matters of vital impo

Re: Scientific inquiry does not involve matters "of vital importance," was, [PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

Sorry. I should have said practical reasoning. It seemed obvious enough. I shall write context twenty times, :) Here is the entire section with the proper designation. * 626. But in practical affairs, in matters of vital importance, it is very easy to exaggerate the importance of

[PEIRCE-L] A footnote on reason

*We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the facts before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human reason" presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and deliberate, they come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally admitted that the parties to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] F.E. Abbot

are in their favor. Or so I think. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:31 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 3/2/2018 8:25 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:> Entirely delightful with a > salutary flourish at the end. > >> The most salutary suicide

[PEIRCE-L] F.E. Abbot

Triadic Philosophy gets a good boost from this Wikipedia entry about someone to whom Peirce refers in CP at a key point and whose side Peirce took when he did a latterday bout with Royce. Entirely delightful with a salutary flourish at the end. The most salutary suicide I have ever encountered.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Quasi-minds Revisited

I make no claims. My aims are modest. The highest value I hold is non-idolatry which means that I tend toward a certain iconoclasm. Toward everything. I understand what you are saying as an effort to see if I conform to an understanding of Peirce. Or at least to some standard of authority like

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Quasi-minds Revisited

t part. That is, from the first part to the third > part. > > > > For, I am of the opinion that you do not have a clear understanding of > what *logos* is, since you have already asserted that transformation goes > on all the time. > > > > Best, > Jerry R > &g

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Quasi-minds Revisited

s not better known and > that he needs help in the interpretation department and you encourage > understanding by interpreting, > > I take that to be products of an incomplex thought, for a *techne* > without logos is not a craft. > > Best, > Jerry R > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Quasi-minds Revisited

The transformation goes on all the time. Sometimes many times a day.That's why Peirce is right about so many things. Too bad he is no better known. He needs some help in the interpretation dept. Understand by interpreting! amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Jerry Rhee

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Peircean linguistic view of the Second Amendment

These arguments are clear and obvious to all but certain political leaders and their legal supporters. I am glad to see them understood as pragmaticist. There is also an argument against violence per se which relates in my view to a distinction between binary conflict and triadic accommodation --

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quasi-mind

Nice response -- here's mine Do not pretend to know my name The words I use are weak and lame They cannot tell from whence they came They don’t pretend to know my name + There is no reason to say more I do not know what this is for There is no why there’s no wherefore Why is there reason

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quasi-mind

Jon -- Our interpretations are a frail reed to expect others to embrace. If we have something to add to what we take Peirce to mean, that makes sense. But why argue over taking something he said is quasi aka vague and saying it is meant to be specific. Peirce is not here to demur. Agreeing is a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction

> > A system is a system regardless whether it is a human abstraction or not. > A system could be real in the Peirce sense that what it does is independent > of what we think. I am tempted to say nothing is just anything. Everything > is something. A weather system is real. A system for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems and Semiosis

I have no idea where consciousness ends. Nor of the boundaries of mind. If everything is signs, then a substantial part of everything may be mystery, awaiting our understanding. This is one reason why I think words themselves are frail vessels. To set their parameters or even their utility is not

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The concept of system is just a human abstraction

I think that anywhere that choice can be said to exist there freedom also exists and from our point of view and perhaps all others chance as well. I think we are on the threshold of learning more and more about the reality of which we are all part. In the song "Idiot Wind" Dylan says 'it's a

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Quasi-mind

I have never in any forum seen more quibbling over terms which either cannot be clarified or need not be clarified. I think this is not great for this forum. I see little here that convinces me that what is truly revolutionary in Peirce -- his convincing attacks on nominalism and dualism, the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Knowledge Bases in Inquiry, Learning, Reasoning

ereby he goes beyond > logical positivism. No one else has done this*.* But I do not have quotes > to support this. So if anybody have it I would be grateful. . More might be > found in C. Misak’s *Verificationism.* > > > > Best > > Søren > > &

Re: : Re: [PEIRCE-L] Knowledge Bases in Inquiry, Learning, Reasoning

opy. > > I have no knowledge of Wittgenstein. > > Edwina > > > > On Tue 13/02/18 9:17 AM , "Stephen C. Rose" stever...@gmail.com sent: > > Edwina why is Firstness akin to entropy? Isn't Firstness the location of > what we might term ontology -- things we mak

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Knowledge Bases in Inquiry, Learning, Reasoning

hermodynamics but is unable to encompass > experiential mind as it is created in a materialist-energetic ontology (not > even an informational one) where Peirce in his philosophy includes > phenomenology. > > > > Best > > Søren > > > > *From:* Steph

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Knowledge Bases in Inquiry, Learning, Reasoning

Edwina why is Firstness akin to entropy? Isn't Firstness the location of what we might term ontology -- things we make into words that are indeed Wittgenstein's unspeakables. Did Peirce believe that entropy trumped what I would call syntropy? If so did he then believe that logic was entropic?

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Aristotle and Peirce

r he may owe to Plato, he exerted > himself to maintain a connection between > forms (ideas) and practical matters in > real-life experience. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On 2/12/2018 10:22 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > >> 173. But fallibilism cannot be appreciated

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Aristotle and Peirce

the individual artifacts, but the arts > themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar > of Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and a > sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear > accessible to their mess

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Aristotle and Peirce

m; i.e., Signs). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 9:22 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Aristotle and Peirce

al artifacts, but the arts > themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar > of Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and a > sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear > accessible to their message **will have gone.&q

[PEIRCE-L] Aristotle and Peirce

173. But fallibilism cannot be appreciated in anything like its true significancy until evolution has been considered. This is what the world has been most thinking of for the last forty years -- though old enough is the general idea itself. Aristotle's philosophy, that dominated the world for so

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Knowledge Bases in Inquiry, Learning, Reasoning

Is this an effort to agree on something that exists and is real, or to design something, or to identify what Peirce thought. If it exists then there can only be one right interpretation. If is it a matter of coming to an agreement with each other well and good. If it has to do with what Peirce

[PEIRCE-L] Pulling a name out of the ontology mixi

http://us.blastingnews.com/opinion/2018/02/triadic-solutions-pulling-a-name-out-of-the-ontology-mix-002352577.html A reaction. amazon.com/author/stephenrose - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

n the rare occasion when an unfamiliar > one appears. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I did not get past the first three letters and I took it to be an email >> cold start no context

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Representamen Discussion

I did not get past the first three letters and I took it to be an email cold start no context -- Interesting to see how tenacious the context was. No one thinks the same. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Jon, list > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Immediate Objects and Phenomena (was Lowell Lecture 3.14)

Semiotics seems to me almost a meta thing. A means of making academic what would be clear if not meta-ed up with interpretive elaboration and complexity. We live day by day and our time is necessarily limited. We encounter things and think about them and then act or express. If one wants to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Immediate Objects and Phenomena (was Lowell Lecture 3.14)

What is the general value of Peirce's technical terms or our glosses on them in relation to signs? Is there anything that is not a sign? Is there any thinking that does not reduce a sign to a word? If a sign becomes a word is the word an object of the sign? Why not simply the expression of a sign?

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and function

t some experiences are >>>> operating only within one mode; or two modes; or three modes. >>>> >>>> Firstness [see Peirce's discussion of it in, for example, 1.310 and on] >>>> as 'immediate consciousness' or a 'feeling'..which we are, however,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and function

insertion of >> the fire of a torch into a piece of wood - that 'energy' is Firstness. The >> interaction between the fire of the torch and the wood is an interaction of >> Secondness and Thirdness [that wood burns at a certain temperature]. But >> that 'energy-i

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.14

r or maybe just plain wrong." >>>> >>>> I don't understand your confusion here, Stephen, as this passage simply >>>> points to the fundamental tenet of Peircean phenomenology, namely, that in >>>> the phanerson--i.e.,whatsover is before some mind--there

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.14

erhaps, especially in phenomenology > and logic as semiotics) that I wonder what prompted your question. > > Best, > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College o

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.14

I don't know what the context of this discussion is exactly but the notion that thinking can be limited to ** things that themselves must somehow be three elements by some sort f default ** seems to be out of order or maybe just plain wrong. For example, I am thinking now as I write. No numerical

Re: Logic as semeiotic in relation to theoretical and practical psychology, was [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

t; > Best, > > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > On Mon

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

ood at the time to be about how > *human* minds work (although it did include some experiments on other > animals). Frederik Stjernfelt takes a close look at the anti-psychologism > of Peirce and other logicians in his book *Natural Propositions*. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Peirce may have avoided the term biowhatever and more than likely quantum also. But Peirce certainly did say things that were not merely intuitive about how things develop but which may also have enabled thngs to develop.Things for which he had no name because they did not exist. That is one way

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

The only rule I follow after being duly notified is that I try to relate things to Peirce. Otherwise equality reigns. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > Edwina, List: > > I never have and never would set myself up

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Is Peirce's anti-psychologism really putting down the brain as a source of conscious thinking? I thought he was simply flagging the limits of psychology as a basis for explaining things. Not a big deal but I do think the brain or whatever we take to be our inner thinking mechanism is quite a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Here's something http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2010/05/12/between-whitehead-peirce/ amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > John, Edwina, list, > > I've nothing to add at the moment, I too completely agree with the thrust

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.13

Peirce, I thought said all thought is in signs. In CP signs appear many more times than thought or thinking. In between with over 700 mentions is consciousness which seems to me significant. I wonder if he believed consciousness was a condition of active thought and of signs as those vaguenesses

Re: [PEIRCE-L] "I don't believe in word senses." (was Lowell Lecture 3.11

Gary: I wonder what it could mean to be “bound by” a symbol introduced > by somebody else, if (as you wrote) “the purpose of the person who > coins a word should not constrain the way that others may use it.” > John: To avoid confusion, anyone who uses a word should be consistent with its

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.12

I was rereading Brent and found that James had zapped publication of the Lowell Lectures because he could not follow them. That eases my mind a bit. Brent also notes that Peirce himself said he has evolved a way of thinking that almost anyone could employ. I find that suggestive.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.11

Peirce has written: go back and read it again, setting > aside my preconceptions enough to leave room for some new (to me) > conceptions. > > > > It doesn’t always work, but it works often enough that I’m still learning > new things from Peirce papers that I’ve read before. Anyway

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.11

I do not understand how these designations have any fixed or even useful purpose apart from whatever the First may be. It seems to me that the First determines what follows just as the sum of First and Second impacts and is changed by the Third. The designation of three aspects of the third seems

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.10

ry R. has argued elsewhere (I hope > he will correct me if I am misremembering), viable hypotheses (1ns) > generally come only from minds (3ns) well-prepared by experience (2ns) in > accordance with the vector of aspiration (2ns→3ns→1ns). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, K

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.10

ng about > a secondness” (EP2:267). > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 2-Jan-18 08:12 > *To:* Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRC

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.10

I think there are myriad ways that things move from 1 to 2 to 3 -- each thought process is one of trillions. Sometimes the primal 1 wrestles with brutal 2 and the willed decision is a no -- all in seconds. Other times the process might emerge as a 1 topic and be amplified by 2 an index and then

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

By the same token, not all fundamentalists agree on everything and fundamentalism lite -- a sort of trust of the text in the absence of other data -- is probably widespread. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > List,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

When I was in my 20s living on North Orchard Street in Lincoln Park in Chicago I vividly remember entering my building after a day's work and stopping. I turned and began to pound the marble-like wall above the row of mailboxes at eye level. Unbidden came a cry, "There are too many truths!" It

Re: Towards welcoming newcomers to Peirce, was, [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

ragmatism. > > Mary > > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:05 AM Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Agreed. It's an excellent notion -- with maybe a nod to the arc being a >> bit stronger than any counter-currents. Fits in with continuity, >> fallibili

Re: Towards welcoming newcomers to Peirce, was, [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Agreed. It's an excellent notion -- with maybe a nod to the arc being a bit stronger than any counter-currents. Fits in with continuity, fallibility and warrants inclusion in a notion of what Peirce is up to. It is realistic! Look at what's happening now. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu,

  1   2   3   4   >