(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
