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

Jerry, List, here is what I meant with the constructivist imperative: It is the "ethical imperative" by Heinz von Foerster, developed from Kant´s categorical imperative: "Always act in a way that makes the number of possibilities of actions increase". I think this would exclude the pursuit of

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

Dear list, What a crazy.. uh, I mean creative concept, this having an ultimate aim. There must, then, be more to this.. With best wishes, Jerry R On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > Stephen, List, > I agree. To bring in aesthetics is triadic

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

  Stephen, List, I agree. To bring in aesthetics is triadic thinking: Like the sign (representamen) mediates between the object and the interpretant, aesthetics mediates between logic and ethics: It is the bridge from "is" to "ought". But I think there are two kinds of bridge, one false and one

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

Dear list, I suppose the agreement we have achieved regarding Perfect Sign is what Peirce must have meant when distinguishing between absolute truth and what we do not doubt. This analysis of our ultimate end of action is ready to be deliberately adopted because it recommends itself in itself.

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

Helmut, List: Obviously one should read the entire context of the quote, and not jump to conclusions based on the mere snippet that I offered to address a very specific point. CSP: ... an ultimate end of action *deliberately *adopted,--that is to say, *reasonably *adopted,--must be a state of

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

List, the quote: CSP: But the instant that an esthetic ideal is proposed as an ultimate end of action, at that instant a categorical imperative pronounces for or against it ... So then, it appears to me that any aim whatever which can be consistently pursued becomes, as soon as it is

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

Gene, List: Thanks for your comments and questions. To clarify, all that I meant by "morally responsible Persons" was how I defined "Person" in the previous thread on "Metaphysics of Semiosis"--namely, "an embodied metaphysical Quasi-mind who additionally has a *center of consciousness*, which

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

Dear Jon S, I enjoyed reading your Additament article. In your post from this morning you say: " As embodied metaphysical Quasi-minds, we are both constituents and interpreters of the Universe as God's great Symbol and Argument. Furthermore, as morally responsible Persons, we can also

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

Edwina, List: It is a very common and well-established practice--certainly in the secondary literature on Peirce, as well as in general--to employ [brackets] when inserting clarifying content into a quotation, and (parentheses) when the author used either parentheses or brackets in the original

: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Perfect Sign Revisited

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R, list: 1] Of course I know that the terms 1ns, 2ns, 3ns are your terms. But others who are not familiar with Peirce's work or the habits-of-this-list might not be so aware. So, nit-picking it may be, but

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

Edwina, Jon, list, Edwina wrote: ET: 1] Just one suggestion. When you are providing a quote from Peirce, please do not add your comments within that quoted text. In the quote below from CP 5,119, the words in brackets [3ns, 2ns, 1ns] are NOT in the original text but are your own commentary. I'm

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

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Jon, list: 1] Just one suggestion. When you are providing a quote from Peirce, please do not add your comments within that quoted text. In the quote below from CP 5,119, the words in brackets [3ns, 2ns, 1ns] are

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Perfect Sign Revisited

List: If my latest hypothesis is correct that the Universe is the Perfect Sign, what would be its Object? What is perpetually acting upon it with new Signs that give it fresh energy and kindle its previously dormant energy? What has the absolute freedom to introduce spontaneous changes into it?