Jon Alan, Gary F., List
I agree for only one place for "destinate" but none for "predestinate" ,
otherwise I'm sure you would have found it and brandished it like a trophy
...
Now I have to admit that I can't figure out what you say is clear so much
you're making little effort in the
Helmut, I think what you say here is just about right:
HR: The truth works as a motive, a quest for it, although it is not yet
achieved. People (animals, organisms, molecules?) have a feeling, intuition,
instinct, internalised law or axiom, that everything has or would have a true
Robert M, Gary F, Jon AS, List
For quotations by Peirce on
these issues, see the attached file, science.txt.
Also note the last
quotation by Edward Moore:
ECM> Peirce has left us, not any kind
of final word, but a work in progress, one eminently worth carrying on, in
the spirit of the one who
Robert, I asked my question because you wrote:
RM: Because this quote troubles me a little: "In that second part, I call
"truth" the predestinate opinion,17 by which I ought to have meant that which
would ultimately prevail if investigation were carried sufficiently far in that
particular
Robert, List,
Whilst taking note of Edwina's comment, thank you for this, this is what
I meant, allowing that my use of 'mind' is individual based, hence what
is being discussed is the pooled product of minds. The components of
what we are talking about are in relation to what we are talking
I am sorry but if you are begining with " If commens means the sum at any
time of whatever everybody happens to come up with,..." I am obliged, on
Peirce's list to give the floor to peirce on this subject :
" There is the Intentional Interpretant, which is a determination of the
mind of the
Jerry, it's clear to me the passage quoted is coming from the realm of
interpreting. The speaker might plan to engage others' reflexes but I
think the speaker also on engaging their intellectual interpreting; it's
for us each to override or complement our reflexes with our
interpreting,
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List - as I see it, this question was specifically asked by Robert
Marty of Jon Alan Schmidt -- a question asking about his specific
views on the Interpretants - and I think it has to be first, replied
to by Jon Alan
Jerry R., List,
To act means to get on with life. If commens means the sum at any time
of whatever everybody happens to come up with, we can each develop
whatever aims we want, at any time, as we go along.
From your wording here do you seem to be allowing for this.
I therefore don't quite
Dear Michael, list,
Here is an example of “system of sensing”:
*Hegseth, an outspoken supporter of President Donald Trump who ran for a
Minnesota Senate seat in 2012, has previously urged "healthy people" to
"have some courage" and attempt to contract the coronavirus in order to
build "herd
List,
Whilst there can be an infinite amount of interpreting by a potentially
limitless community, final interpretant isn't this.
Alongside descriptions by for example Donna Williams, a writer on
neurology, the immediate interpretant corresponds to the pure perception
part of colour, shape,
Dear Cecile, list,
Why not?
I mean, isn’t belief supposedly *that* upon which one is prepared to act?
What, then, is *that* belief?
Let us take our situation, then.
We have utterers and interpreters (and presumably a commens somewhere).
And if we take Peirce at his word, then the only
Gary , List
Surely not and I even think otherwise! The destined interpretant is the
one that the issuer of the sign can expect given his knowledge and mastery
of the cultural codes currently in force at the very moment of the issuance
of the sign. His intention consist of an anticipation of
Why not? I thought it did sound very interesting indeed...
De: "Jerry Rhee"
À: "Helmut Raulien"
Cc: "Gary Fuhrman" , "peirce-l"
Envoyé: Lundi 18 Mai 2020 21:18:19
Objet: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] To put an end to the false debate on the
classification of signs
Dear Helmut, list,
What
Dear Helmut, list,
What an interesting observation.
*meh*.. I don’t believe it.
With best wishes,
Jerry R
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:25 PM Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
> List
>
> do I understand it correctly, that the paradoxon here is, that the final
> interpretant is the first element in
List
do I understand it correctly, that the paradoxon here is, that the final interpretant is the first element in logical order, but the last in temporal order? In this case I would propose a solution attempt like this: The truth works as a motive, a quest for it, although it is not yet
Robert, is it your intention to argue that communication cannot “succeed” at
all unless the interpretant of the sign is completely determinate, and
identically so for all communicants?
Would you likewise say that knowledge is not actual, or real, unless it is
absolute and unquestionable?
Jon Alan, List
I repeat this debate with you and it leads me to ask you a preliminary
question that I should have asked you on September 22, 2018, but I probably
did not have very clear ideas 18 months ago. Here it is: what you say this:
" The *Destinate* Interpretant is what the Sign is
Jon:
> On May 16, 2020, at 7:13 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> Second, I have never suggested that the final interpretant "functions BEFORE"
> the immediate and dynamical interpretants. What I have argued is that the
> final interpretant logically determines the dynamical interpretant,
Robert, Edwina, List:
I would simply like to offer three brief clarifications of my own views,
and leave it at that.
First, the object and interpretant in Peirce's 1903 taxonomy evidently
correspond to the *dynamical *object and *final *interpretant in his later
taxonomies, because he assigns
Edwina, List
I first clarify that I think I agree with most people on the list that the
hexadic sign is a refinement of the triadic sign and therefore naturally
responds to more precise ones. It is a difficult exercise to do an analysis
of a concrete case.
As far as the question of interpretants
Robert,
A clear statement, thanks. I have but one remark. You wrote:
RM: I begin with a short history that will show that the state of the
relationship between proponents of methods described as empirical and those of
mathematical methods is not good.
--
You go on to describe your
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Robert - thank you for this clarity -of-the-game.
I have one question. You use both O-S-I and Od-S-If in your outline.
I think that the more intricate use of Od and If really belong to
another
Thank you, Robert. This indeed is how the game should be played.
Mike
On 5/16/2020 11:18 AM, robert marty wrote:
The general clash over the role of mathematics in knowledge creation
was preceded by a debate between Jon Alan and myself. It was a false
debate because Jon Alan only paraphrased
24 matches
Mail list logo
