tinuous dialogue in which the utterer and interpreter are temporally
>>>>>> sequential stages of the same (quasi-)mind. the pattern of neural
>>>>>> activity
>>>>>> that embodies a thought-sign is an *actual *utterance just as much
>>>>&g
ewise, if the entire universe is conceived as "a single grand
narrative," then it seems to me that it requires a narrator.
GF (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-11/msg00028.html):
A *narrative
*is basically a representation of *a sequence of events* which is not
nec
Even when our
> actions do not have *conscious purposes
> <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/sdg.htm#x02>, *they have motivations or
> intentions which can be read as natural signs or tokens of *some* type of
> “purpose”, or as intimations of Thirdness in the universe.
>
> Consequently I think that i
other form of action.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
________
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of g...@gnusystems.ca
Sent: Saturday, November 6, 2021 8:04:29 AM
To: 'P
der
if contributors shouldn't have to furnish practical analogies in order to
clarify their use of terms, because trying to ground some of these concepts is
not easy when everyone seems to be using a similar code with different meanings
in various places.
Best
Jack
______
t;> just as much as the pattern of sound waves or marks on a page that
>>>>> embodies
>>>>> a spoken or written text," and so the same questions just above might
>>>>> be put to, especially, the verbal expression of that "highly origin
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 5-Nov-21 20:53
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Signs, Types, and Tokens
Gary R., Phyllis, List:
GR: But on further reflection, it is quite clear what the 'type' of the subway
token is ...
I am
toanswer them all with positive assurance"*
This gives rise to a little humility ...
Robert Marty
Honorary Professor ; PhD Mathematics ; PhD Philosophy
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Marty
*https://martyrobert.academia.edu/ <https://martyrobert.academia.edu/>*
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L
seem that for the purposes of developing a scientific semeiotic that we
>>>> require such terminology to even speak about semiosis with other
>>>> semioticians, to discuss semiosis generally, or individual examples of
>>>> semiosis, etc. The danger, as I'm beginning to
>>>> is governed by the *general *type to which it conforms. However,
>>>> individual *humans *are not tokens of the type "man" as a *word *in
>>>> English, the type "homo" as a *word *in Latin, or the type "ἄνθρωπος"
&
t; GF: As Gary R confirmed, it is the written or spoken *word* that is a
>>> token. It would follow that the three words in the different languages are
>>> *subtypes*, not tokens, of the more general type which Peirce referred
>>> to as “the same sign.” This implies a hierar
I wonder, though, whether the term “token” can only apply to *external
>> *signs.
>> In his October 1995 *Monist* article, Peirce referred to “A sign (under
>> which designation I place every kind of thought, and not alone external
>> signs)” (CP 5.447, EP2:350). A t
just as a spoken or written text is
> *embodied* in a pattern of sound waves or marks on a page. The only
> difference is that it is an *internal* sign, invisible to others. Does
> that disqualify it as a *token*? I would certainly hesitate to call it a
> *type*.
>
> Gary f.
>
w in a pattern of neural activity,
> whether I *utter* it or not, just as a spoken or written text is
> *embodied* in a pattern of sound waves or marks on a page. The only
> difference is that it is an *internal* sign, invisible to others. Does
> that disqualify it as a *token*? I would cert
o explain the grounds of the
> validity of the reasoning, then I suspect we'd better take some care to
> sort out the relationships between the quantifiers and modal operators in
> the inductive reasoning.
>
> This kind of concern, I believe, should be controlling when it comes to
> better und
ural activity, whether I utter it or not, just
as a spoken or written text is embodied in a pattern of sound waves or marks on
a page. The only difference is that it is an internal sign, invisible to
others. Does that disqualify it as a token? I would certainly hesitate to call
it a type.
G
n to refer to several specific levels of generality at once.
By the way, some years ago I did a slideshow dealing with the etymology and history of the word “type,” in connection with a Peirce text where he uses the Greek form τύπος in reference to the “copulation” of Form and Matter in semiosis. The text
a Peirce
text where he uses the Greek form τύπος in reference to the
“copulation” of Form and Matter in semiosis. The text is
included in /Turning Signs/ here
<https://gnusystems.ca/TS/gld.htm#x29>, in a passage leading
up to a discussion of th
mo*, ἄνθρωπος are the same
>>> sign’ (MS 9), the “sign” is the type of which the three terms are tokens;
>>> but the three terms are also types of which individual humans are tokens.
>>> And if we use the term “individual” in logical strictness, we can say that
>>> Phi
he way, some years ago I did a slideshow
>> <https://gnusystems.ca/Type.pdf> dealing with the etymology and history
>> of the word “type,” in connection with a Peirce text where he uses the
>> Greek form τύπος in reference to the “copulation” of Form and Matter in
>> semiosis. The
directly via its immediate form whereas Kant's noumena
> and so on is less amenable or wholly denied to perception?).
>
> Just trying to think of Peirce in practical terms by skeletonising his
> theory as much as possible, adding parts when needed.
>
> Jack
>
> -------
d be controlling when it comes to better
understanding the classification of different kinds of signs in a theory of
speculative grammar as types or tokens.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
______
gy and history
> of the word “type,” in connection with a Peirce text where he uses the
> Greek form τύπος in reference to the “copulation” of Form and Matter in
> semiosis. The text is included in *Turning Signs* here
> <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/gld.htm#x29>, in a passage l
ble or wholly denied to perception?).
Just trying to think of Peirce in practical terms by skeletonising his theory
as much as possible, adding parts when needed.
Jack
________
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021
x29> here, in a passage leading up to a
discussion of the “categories.”
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 3-Nov-21 13:18
To: Peirce-L
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Signs, Types, and Tokens (was A key principle of normative
semeiotic for interpreting texts)
G
The Halloween goblin apparently replaced my name with "N/A"
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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,
sible
or impractical, and some fantasies may turn out to be true. A premature
dismissal of fantasy can destroy creativity.
John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. P
gain, I know Peirce's theory is much
> more general than human interpretation, but I wonder what your thoughts
> would be regarding a perspectival rendering of said theory solely within
> the performative/practical domain?
>
> Best
>
> Jack
>
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-
t; embodiment (the token, the *existing* “text”) is another. Your perception
> of inconsistency is based on the assumption that type and token are not two
> “signs” but one. Both assumptions are arbitrary
> <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/rlb.htm#bsrv>. That’s all.
>
> Gary f.
>
_ _ _
on't), what are
your thoughts?
Best,
Gary R
“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Just keep going
No feeling is final”
― Rainer Maria Rilke
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
_ _ _ _ _
for knowledge (which Peirce pointed out as insufficient)
as the fundamental relation of knowledge, in terms of what brings something
new to knowledge, so that abduction, as an inferential solution, it would not
be necessary.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List"
for knowledge (which Peirce pointed out as
insufficient) as the fundamental relation of knowledge, in terms of what
brings something new to knowledge, so that abduction, as an inferential
solution, it would not be necessary.
--
Saludos,
Miguel Pedro Hernández Díaz
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L
gn and its embodiment
(the token, the existing “text”) is another. Your perception of inconsistency
is based on the assumption that type and token are not two “signs” but one.
Both assumptions are arbitrary <https://gnusystems.ca/TS/rlb.htm#bsrv> . That’s
all.
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ..
us of an atom. But that is a red herring, because for every item, which is bigger than this atom, it is sharp, and therefore a discontinuity. "Real" means being valid independently of instantiation, not being valid for atoms, quarks, or strings too. So the individual sign and discontinuities are r
te
>>> sure, that in semiosis there also are schmitt-trigger-like elements. Of
>>> course you can say, that if you look at the sharp edge of a step with a
>>> microscope, you can see, that it is a bit rounded, at least with the radius
>>> of an atom. But that is a red herri
> these (an exploration in which one ought, if possible, to provide himself
> with a guide, or, if that cannot be, to prepare his courage to see one
> conception that will have to be mastered peering over the head of another,
> and soon another peering over that, and so on, until he shall
eans being valid independently of instantiation, not being valid for atoms, quarks, or strings too. So the individual sign and discontinuities are real, not arbitrary, is my opinion.
Best, helmut
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply Al
shall begin to think there is to be no end of
it, or that life will not be long enough to complete the study) that …
GF: That’s a replica, not an interpretant.
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu>
peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui
tep with a
>> microscope, you can see, that it is a bit rounded, at least with the radius
>> of an atom. But that is a red herring, because for every item, which is
>> bigger than this atom, it is sharp, and therefore a discontinuity. "Real"
>> means being valid ind
ttered text is only replicable, not translatable, and an interpretant is a
> kind of translation, in my view. But maybe this is nothing but a
> terminological quibble.
>
> Gary f.
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All"
is only
replicable, not translatable, and an interpretant is a kind of translation, in
my view. But maybe this is nothing but a terminological quibble.
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 29-Oct-21 13:59
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key pr
because for every item, which is
> bigger than this atom, it is sharp, and therefore a discontinuity. "Real"
> means being valid independently of instantiation, not being valid for
> atoms, quarks, or strings too. So the individual sign and discontinuities
> are real, not arbitrary
e that every sign--including the entire universe, conceived as "a vast representamen" that "is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs"--has two objects and three interpretants, but I did not attempt to sort them out in that post (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc
rpretants, but I did
not attempt to sort them out in that post (
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-10/msg00204.html). The
immediate object is *internal *to the sign, the object as represented *in
that sign*, while the dynamical object is *external *to the sign, the
object as it is *in itself*.
Gary F, list,
That was slightly opaque, but, yes, exactly that - of the
language/language-using "bodymind" being united within the process of semiosis
(the unity/binding of substances in/through language more generally).
Thanks
Jack
____
From: pei
parts are entia rationis, rather than
"bottom-up" such that the parts are real and the whole is an ens rationis.
GF: If those two suggestions don’t work, perhaps you can propose some other
general principle that we can salvage from this failure of communication.
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-req
ying it.
But I guess that was an infelicitous way of expressing the idea.
Gary f.
From: JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY
Sent: 28-Oct-21 13:42
To: 'Peirce-L' ; g...@gnusystems.ca
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative
semeiotic for interpreting texts
Gary F, List,
H
be put into relation to the object of the
> *commens*.” As I’ve said earlier in this thread, the *object* of the text
> or individual sign has to be also the object of the Thought, and of the
> whole dialogue, if the dialogue is genuine. This is the object that the
> partners in a dialogue
lity -- of
language as volitional movement which seeks to index objective relations which
are never, or quite rarely, contained within language itself?
Interesting topic which dovetails nicely with some of my own research right now.
Best
Jack
________
From: peirce-l-re
, “that mind into which the minds of utterer and interpreter have
to be fused in order that any communication should take place.”
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 27-Oct-21 15:39
Gary F., List:
GF: Peirce does not say in CP 4.551
ture posts that *they *write as a result
of it.
Of course, #1 and #2 are constituent signs of #3 and #4, and each can also
be analyzed as consisting of "smaller" signs, which can also be analyzed as
consisting of "smaller" signs, and so on *ad infinitum*. Moreover, #3 and
#4 are constitue
the in this rarified atmosphere of abstractions, so I’d better stop now
before I expire.
Gary f.
From: Gary Richmond
Sent: 26-Oct-21 17:50
To: Peirce-L
Cc: Gary Fuhrman ; Jon Alan Schmidt
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting
texts
Ga
mething to do with every mind being a sign,
> as well. The uttered sign and each interpreter's mind "are so connected
> that ... [the] two of them can have one interpretant" (CP 4.550, 1906).
> This "co-determined" dynamical interpretant is different for each
> interprete
nnected
> that ... [the] two of them can have one interpretant" (CP 4.550, 1906).
> This "co-determined" dynamical interpretant is different for each
> interpreter because connecting the same uttered sign with a different
> interpreter's mind results in a system that constitute
mar of “should”.
>
> In short, I find these comments disappointingly shallow, given the GRAVITY
> of the assertion of the sentence.
>
> John: could you search for some significant SCIENTIFIC arguments that
> address the structures of realism and addresses the foundational issues
> essential t
es a different new sign.
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 25-Oct-21 19:04
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting
texts
Gary F., Helmut, List:
Your longer Peirce quotation below
as well as a symbolic obligatory logic is essential to such a
> nomological science, such as the perplex numbers in relation to the
> compositions of organic mathematical symbols.
>
> I will close by expressing a revealing but abstractly-encoded tease. Beware
> of Skolemization!
>
>
now have. All *intentions* are future-oriented, and that dynamic
> interpretant was his way of *aiming at* the Final Interpretant of the
> whole dialogue which included his text. He really believed that there is
> such a “thing” as Truth, and I think his work deserves our respect and
> cl
such as the perplex numbers in relation to the
compositions of organic mathematical symbols.
I will close by expressing a revealing but abstractly-encoded tease. Beware of
Skolemization!
Cheers
Jerry_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All"
th
> hypo-theses and hyper-theses .
>
> As I have previously asserted, I believe that the polynomial index of
> logical factors as well as a symbolic obligatory logic is essential to such
> a nomological science, such as the perplex numbers in relation to the
> compositions of
We should mention that John Sowa quoted part of R 602 back on August 16 (Re:
[PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 25 (mail-archive.com)
<https://www.mail-archive.com/peirce-l@list.iupui.edu/msg15939.html> ),
claiming that it contradicted “ADT’s slide 25”. There was some fol
..End
> of quote
> ........
>
> I think you have noted that phaneroscopy is well present in this
> classification; moreover, its definition leaves no doubt about Hegel's
> phenomenology.
.
} A journey of a thousand miles starts under one's feet. [Tao Te Ching 64 (Feng/English) {
https://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the time
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 24-Oct-21 16:34
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle
e
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 24-Oct-21 16:34
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key principle of normative semeiotic for interpreting
texts
Gary F., List:
I apologize for the length of this post, but the thread is already getting a
author's (intentional interpreter's) intended meaning as
> expressed in the text" (Gary R), are in fact proposing to us that we play
> a Chinese fantasmatic game, the rules of which they have long been trying
> to establish.
>
> Regards,
> Robert Marty
>
mmediate object and interpretant, being internal to the
sign, are also internal to this "commind."
GF: If a semiosic process is *continuous*, as you have argued in another
thread, then the boundaries between sign and interpretant are artifacts of
analysis: they are not as real as t
nechist semiotician, then, there should
> be no problem seeing an Intentional Interpretant as *also* an Immediate
> Interpretant internal to the sign. The “boundaries” between signs, like
> those between organisms and their environments, are permeable by nature.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
as any other?
Best,
Gary R
“LET EVERYTHING HAPPEN TO YOU
BEAUTY AND TERROR
JUST KEEP GOING
NO FEELING IS FINAL”
― RAINER MARIA RILKE
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia
College of the City University of New York
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L s
Interpretant internal
to the sign. The “boundaries” between signs, like those between organisms and
their environments, are permeable by nature.
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 23-Oct-21 19:10
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A key
Gary, List
Thanks, that's very well written. I agree with much of this more nuanced
interpretation.
Jack
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of g...@gnusystems.ca
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 2:57 PM
To: 'Peirce-L'
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L
t with nothing to go on
except the reaction to the text determined by his own habits and intuitions.
This is what we call a "subjective" reading.
Gary f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY
Sent: 23-Oct-21 19:36
To: Peirce-L ; Gary Richmond
Subject: R
; other?
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
> “Let everything happen to you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the
lennia is not enough to produce
"objective" scholarly consensus, then what pragmatic use does the "final
interpretant" actually have?
Jack
From: JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2021 12:22 AM
To: Peirce-L ; Gary Richmond
f as being better than others - but I'm not "sold" on the "final
interpretant" of Peirce in a semeiotic system wherein all evolves continuously
(what is final?).
Best
Jack
________
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on
behalf of Gary Richmond
Sent:
o you
> Beauty and terror
> Just keep going
> No feeling is final”
> ― Rainer Maria Rilke
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click
College of the City University of New York*
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to
f.
From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu On
Behalf Of Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 20-Oct-21 18:06
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Post Peirce
Margaretha, List:
MH: Popper introduced what is now called the Three-Worlds Hypothesis. It is a
heuristic advising people to caref
somehow co-evolved such that neither
> is primordial, is not *Peirce's *cosmology. Each of these is apparently a
> Peirce-*inspired *analytic framework, but none can rightly be labeled as
> *THE* Peircean analytic framework--i.e., *Peirce's *analytic framework.
>
> How can I assert
enberg!)
> https://medium.com/@davegray/the-roots-of-liminal-thinking-3be4bea6fd63
>
> The one thing that is missing on this blog is an in-depth discussion of
> the role of metaphors in it all.
>
> ~ Margaretha H.
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "
ally with respect to time,
please see sections 5-7 of my paper, "Temporal Synechism: A Peircean
Philosophy of Time" (https://rdcu.be/b9xVm).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - t
Standpoint
>>>
>>> α in individuals, men; spiritual
>>> intelligences, animals
>>>
>>> β in families
>>>
>>> γ in communities of races
>>> ___ THE END OF THE FIRS
into *three* parts, the first much the
>> smallest, the last much the largest. They are
>>
>> I. *Mathematics,* the study of *ideal constructions* independently of
>> the question of their real existence.
>>
>> II*. Empirics*, or *Phenomenolog*y, the study of *phenomena* with the
>> purpose of identifying their forms
ach of these is apparently a
> Peirce-inspired analytic framework, but none can rightly be labeled as THE
> Peircean analytic framework--i.e., Peirce's analytic framework.
>
> How can I assert this so confidently? Because I generally agree with the
> following past remarks by John Sowa.
&
y a
Peirce-*inspired *analytic framework, but none can rightly be labeled as
*THE* Peircean analytic framework--i.e., *Peirce's *analytic framework.
How can I assert this so confidently? Because I generally agree with the
following past remarks by John Sowa.
JFS (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/pei
or the study of the universal characters of phenomena.
>
> 2.* Nomology*, or the study of those characters of phenomena which though
> not universal, belong to whole classes of phenomena, and the attempt to
> account for them by connecting them with the universal laws which
> philoso
mte's principle. But I believe that it's better to
> go back to an updated version of 1345.
>
> There is, of course, much more to say about all these issues.
>
> John
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L
> their opinion about what Peirce meant, intended, or implied is correct.
> Peirce himself insisted that he was fallible. All our opinions about what
> Peirce intended are fallible opinions about a person who was fallible.
>
> John
>
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► PEIRCE-L subscribers:
Linguistics
*Křížkovského 14 771 80 Olomouc Czech Republic*
ludmila.lack...@upol.cz | www.upol.cz
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► 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 .
►
or implied is correct. Peirce
himself insisted that he was fallible. All our opinions about what Peirce
intended are fallible opinions about a person who was fallible.
John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L t
principles violates Comte's principle. But I believe
that it's better to go back to an updated version of 1345.
There is, of course, much more to say about all these issues.
John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIR
aneroscopy to include some normative
principles violates Comte's principle. But I believe that it's better to
go back to an updated version of 1345.
There is, of course, much more to say about all these issues.
John
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List
, in
Interactive Real Time.
Resource
• Survey of Theme One Program
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/08/28/survey-of-theme-one-program-3/
Regards,
Jon
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIR
menology/phaneroscopy as the first
> *positive
> *science, as well as esthetics and ethics as the first two *normative
> *sciences.
> Was this change a mistake on Peirce's part? Evidently Bernard thinks so.
>
> BM (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-10/msg00151.html):
Today I was reminded by Ben Udell, the co-manager of Peirce-L, that there
were times when Joe Ransdell would suggest a limit on messages sent per
day. Because of the flood of messages posted to the List (many regarding
the current controversies) we think that it's time to make that suggestion
intaining the focus on substance rather than highlighting a perceived
> personal slight.
>
> GF (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2018-08/msg00019.html): *Do
> not take offense*. If nobody takes offense, nobody can *give *offense,
> even if they are trying to. Those
(https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-10/msg00151.html
<https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2021-10/msg00151.html>):
On the contrary what has been suggested is to find a place for an
unknown thing into a pretty trichotomy a priori derived from the
logic o
e Bible... or with The
> Capital... and here we are!
>
> Hope that a creation of a new List will overcome this retrograde positions
> that don't help anyone... not even the sacred memory of Peirce himself.
> All the best
> Claudio
>
> sowa @bestweb.net escribió el 15/10/2021 a la
\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L
us.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on &qu
ograde positions that don't help anyone... not even the
sacred memory of Peirce himself.
All the best
Claudio
sowa @bestweb.net escribió el 15/10/2021 a las 19:02:
List, On Thursday,
I sent the note below to
1101 - 1200 of 15241 matches
Mail list logo
