Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the Universe (was The Thing In Itself))

ast time. Best Jack From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt Sent: Monday, June 12, 2023 11:46 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the Universe (was The Thing In Itself)) Ja

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the Universe (was The Thing In Itself))

ical principle (to my mind, or, I think, to most or all people here). Jack From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu on behalf of John F Sowa Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2023 5:24 AM To: Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the U

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the Universe (was The Thing In Itself))

Jon and Jack, I believe that there is a way out of this impasse. Although I agree that Jon's conclusion is correct, I believe that we have to state the issues of perception, cognition, and semeiotic with more precision, In particular, it's essential to state the issues in terms of Peirce's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the Universe (was The Thing In Itself))

Jack, List: JRKC: There is no Peircean Semeiotic, whatsoever - without the Kantian thing in itself. ... It isn't possible for Peircean Semeiotic to be coherent except that thing in itself exists beyond all possible cognition. The pioneer of Peircean semeiotic strongly disagrees, and so do most (

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the Universe (was The Thing In Itself))

Jack, All the discussion in this list has given you a huge amount of material for your thesis. I'll admit that some of the arguments did not refute the claim about an incognizable Ding an sich. JRKC: "There is no Peircean Semeiotic, whatsoever - without the Kantian thing in itself. The objec

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the Universe (was The Thing In Itself))

be real, all would be an illusion. Like the buddhists say, they like it that way, I don´t. But, by them, the suspicion is there. But might it be proven, if it was so, or disproven if it wasn´t?   Best   Helmut Gesendet: Sonntag, 11. Juni 2023 um 16:29 Uhr Von: "JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY&qu

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the Universe (was The Thing In Itself))

LY CODY" An: "Helmut Raulien" Cc: "Peirce-L" , "Jon Alan Schmidt" , "s...@bestweb.net" Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the Universe (was The Thing In Itself))   If these program parts would develop an intell

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the Universe (was The Thing In Itself))

Peirce-L" , "Jon Alan Schmidt" , "s...@bestweb.net" Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the Universe (was The Thing In Itself))   There is no point in wasting time and paper (or electrons) in arguing about the details. John, whilst I agre

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [EXTERNAL] Objects and Perception (was God and the Universe (was The Thing In Itself))

Jon, John, list, There is no Peircean Semeiotic, whatsoever - without the Kantian thing in itself. The object as thing must be in itself beyond all possible cognition and experience. H1)O(H2 H1[O'])O(H2[O'] - )=experience, necessarily mediated, thus "representation/frame