: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism,
etc.
John -
I'd certainly like to see the empirical evidence that concludes that IF you
write a document out rather than cut-and-paste it, THEN, you will understand it
better.
And I'd like to see the empirical evidence
: Sunday, November 16, 2014 11:27 AM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism,
etc.
Well, Edwina, I am not going to list specks of evidence, you need to read the
literature. I got it primarily through studying distributed cognition,
especially to teach
Dear Mary,
Thank you for the list of quotations from Collected Papers. -Most of those I
have copied by hand, in handwriting, that is. Which is a part of my method in
trying to get an exact, as good as possible undertanding of the writings in
question. - Now CSP.
Nowadays, people just copy
-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law,
Synechism, etc.
Dear Mary,
Thank you for the list of quotations from Collected Papers. -Most of those I
have copied by hand, in handwriting, that is. Which is a part of my method
in trying to get an exact, as good as possible undertanding
: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism,
etc.
Dear Kirsti,
a CP-Quote i like very much:
Man makes the word, and the word means nothing which the man has not made it
mean, and that only to some man. But since man can think only by means of words
or other external
: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism,
etc.
Stefan, List,
That is indeed a good quote. It is on precisely that point that Putnam
diverges from Peirce in his “brain in a vat” argument. He says “we determine
meaning if anything does”. This leads him to his
...@gmail.commailto:mary.liber...@gmail.com; Peirce
List' Peirce-L@list.iupui.edumailto:Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism,
etc.
Dear Mary,
Thank you for the list of quotations from
...@semiotikon.de
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2014 3:23 PM
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law,
Synechism, etc.
It is a great misiunderstanding to take 'empirical' and 'objective' as
synonyms. This common belief, however, has such a strong hold
over most - many
List,
Jerry, you partly miss my point, partly not.
My ongoing work deals with the interrelations between culture, society, groups and individuals. Triadic, diagammatical thinking is the tool I use.
Well, an individual cell, mutatis mutandis, may be taken as something very similar to a human
untill very late in
his life.
With thanks in advance
-Original Message-
From: Kirsti Määttänen [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 12:27
To: Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism,
etc
-
From: Kirsti Määttänen [mailto:kirst...@saunalahti.fi]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2014 12:27
To: Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism,
etc.
List, Jerry al.
An interesting discussion seems to be going on.
Jerry wrote
List, Michael:
On Nov 11, 2014, at 8:06 AM, Michael DeLaurentis wrote:
Jerry -- It’s not that Peirce didn’t accept Cantorian set theory* [he did] –
he didn’t think any aleph approached a true continuum [as he conceived it],
just as any integer raised to the power of the integers [aleph
Udell
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism,
etc.
Ben, list:
On Nov 10, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote, quoting CSP:
A true CONTINUUM (q. v.) is something whose possibilities of determination no multitude
Peircers,
I was just about to copy out the whole of Peirce's Baldwin entry on Synechism
(CP 6.169-173) to my blog for continued study when I found that Ben Udell had
previously posted a copy here:
☞ http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/3531
I am finding much to think
Ben, list:
On Nov 10, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote, quoting CSP:
A true CONTINUUM (q. v.) is something whose possibilities of determination no
multitude of individuals can exhaust.
A minor comment with respect to this definition of a continuum.
The concept of can exhaust is a
:59 AM
To: Benjamin Udell
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law,
Synechism, etc.
Ben, list:
On Nov 10, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote, quoting CSP:
A true C
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Baldwin/Dictionary/defs/C4defs.htm
LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 11:59 AM
To: Benjamin Udell
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Continuity, Generality, Infinity, Law, Synechism,
etc.
Ben, list:
On Nov 10, 2014, at 9:33 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14919
HP:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14920
Thanks, Howard, I have a jumble of responses to your questions that I will try
to organize later, but in casting about the web for e-lightenment I found the
18 matches
Mail list logo
