Re: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

> On Jun 13, 2016, at 10:40 AM, Jerry LR Chandler > wrote: > > Some passing thoughts… > > Can you extend your categorization of “EXISTENCE” to the meanings of the > sciences? > > Is this paragraph applicable to the "real/existent distinctions" among such >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

List, Clark: > On Jun 13, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > > Just that I notice for many trying to get a grasp on Peirce the real/existent > distinction isn’t obvious because most philosophy is based upon nominalistic > assumptions. For nominalists of the realist

Re: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

Clark, Thank you very much for your posts on this thread. Greatly appreciated! Also, Neglegted Argument has been my favorite piece since I started with CSP. The question of the reality of God has always seemed to me to be a critical question to pose in front of anything Peirce wrote.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

> On Jun 10, 2016, at 5:57 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > Clark, very nice collection of excerpts you posted there. I think my blog > post for today is roughly in the same ballpark: Wow, that’s a really interesting quote I don’t think I’d seen before. > In the end is the beginning. Along

RE: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

Clark, very nice collection of excerpts you posted there. I think my blog post for today is roughly in the same ballpark: Direct perception is both the intimate beginning and the ultimate ideal of Theory. Direct perception occurs immediately, ‘before

Re: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > Clark, List, > > Interesting post. And also: The entire universe > is perfused with signs, if it is not > composed exclusively of signs

Re: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 1:21 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > I too very much admire Kelly Parker's book, while I agree that it has some > problems. Or should I say, it has been superseded and/or corrected in certain > topics by scholarship since it was published (1998).

Re: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

Clark, List, Interesting post. And also: *The entire universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs .* I too very much admire Kelly Parker's book, while I agree that it has some problems. Or

Re: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

> On Jun 9, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > > How is reality a process of semiosis if it's independent of what is thought > concerning the object? Because of Peirce’s conception of ontology as semiosis. He’s somewhat Hegelian in this sense. You have pure chance

Re: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

Clark, list: How is reality a process of semiosis if it's independent of what is thought concerning the object? "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

> On Jun 8, 2016, at 2:22 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > In semiosis (the process of meaning), > there is no sign without an interpretant, no interpretant without an object, > no object without a sign. But in this ‘cooperation of three subjects,’ the

[PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

Another Peircean blog post . In semiosis (the process of meaning), there is no sign without an interpretant, no interpretant without an object, no object without a sign. But in this 'cooperation of three subjects,' the reality of the one functioning as