(I forgot to send this email off last night.
Undistorted tables are attached,.)
Gary R, Phyllis, lists,
Would it be possible that Peirce had two sets of Firstness, Secondness and
Thirdness in mind without naming them ? Let us call them X and Y triads.
The basic difference between these triads
; Mary Libertin ; Helmut Raulien
Sent: Sunday, August 24, 2014 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] Abduction, 1ns, Induction, 2ns,
Deduction, 3ns and Peirce's brief "confusion"
Phyllis, all,
It may be that rather then your brain being fogged, Phyllis, that
Phyllis, all,
It may be that rather then your brain being fogged, Phyllis, that I am
simply wrong in, perhaps, overstating my position. Peirce remained
indecisive, not completely certain in this matter as the material he
substituted for the undelivered notes suggests. And there is even some
hesita
Gary, et all,
Well, the docs warned me that there would probably be any of several cognitive
consequences while I am taking these high doses of prednisone. This posting is
probably a result of one or more of these effects, as I can't grasp where you
are headed and I have a sense that my posting
Phyllis,
I must say that I find some of your remarks confusing, You wrote:
PC: Since deduction produces necessary results, it seems a little like
brute actuality to me.
But *necessity* (as lawfulness, as habit-taking, as necessary, that is,
mathematical reasoning) is itself a character of thirdn
Gary asked: Are you saying that you see him changing his mind yet again in that
regard, Phyllis?
I'm not sure. Since deduction produces necessary results, it seems a little
like brute actuality to me. Also, hasn't the later Peirce always ascribed
generalization to induction of all kinds (univer
Phyllis, all,
Ah, so Peirce changes his mind as to the subdivisions he will make of
abduction and induction as he delves ever deeper into these in the N.A.,
there in consideration of *inquiry*, not merely as forms of *inference*.
But I see no evidence in the N.A. (or elsewhere) that he changed his
Gary R, Helmut, lists,
It is interesting that my assignment proposed in [biosemiotics:6468]
agrees with Peirce's:
"Sung: Choice I, i.e., A = Abduction; B =Induction;(6467-1)
C = Deduction"
With all the best.
Sung
___
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D
Gary R wrote:that Induction split, at once, into the Sampling of Collections,
and the Sampling of Qualities. . . " (*Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of
Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism*, Turrisi, ed. 276-7).
Yet later, in1908 in NA, Peirce identified 1. Retro. 2 ded
*Helmut, Cathy, Josh, Mary, lists, *
*On several occasions over the years I've taken up the matter of the
categorial assignations Peirce gave deduction and induction, the most
recent being a peirce-l post of March, 2012, in response to Cathy Legg
writing: "I don't see how one might interpret indu
10 matches
Mail list logo