Gary F., List:
GF: I anticipated this kind of puzzlement on the part of some readers, and
that’s why I inserted this warning just before the Merrell quote
I took that warning into account, which is why I talked about the
"experiencing bodymind" rather than the "subject." I assume that Merrell
, if more questions remain, repost them and I’ll try to clarify.
Gary f.
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 21-Jun-20 21:41
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Communicating An Idea
Gary F., List:
I am puzzled by Merrell's incorporation of the "tripod" into his
Gary F., List:
I am puzzled by Merrell's incorporation of the "tripod" into his diagram,
since there is no label at the center and two of the three "legs" are both
attached to the "experiencing bodymind." According to Peirce, "a graph
with three tails" (CP 1.347, 1903) is for a genuine triadic re
ht
some list members might be interested in that, hence the link above.
(There are also some links within the text itself that might be
helpful in exploring the ideas.)
Gary f.
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 20-Jun-20 20:07
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] C
of the O-S-I relation. I thought some list
members might be interested in that, hence the link above. (There are also some
links within the text itself that might be helpful in exploring the ideas.)
Gary f.
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 20-Jun-20 20:07
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Sub
Gary R., Gary F., List:
Upon reflection, I was indeed too hasty and dismissive in my initial
responses, for which I sincerely apologize. As I only belatedly
acknowledged, "abduction" may be more suitable in certain contexts than
"retroduction," which Peirce himself evidently recognized. In
parti
I call by the otherwise quite useless name of Abduction,--a
>> word which is only employed in logic to translate the [ἀπαγωγή] of that
>> chapter. (CP 5.143-144, EP 2:205, 1903)
>>
>>
>> The asterisk is where EP 2 has a reference to note 11 on page 537, which
>> tells the f
r.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 6:20 AM wrote:
>
>> Gary R,
>>
>> I think yours is a very astute and context-sensitive way of communicating
>> the idea abduction/retroduction. To a logician, I guess it would make
>> “abduction” a “looser” or
Gary F., List:
That is a valid point, consistent with my hypothesis that despite
preferring "retroduction," Peirce uses "abduction" in 1901-1906 because his
audiences were likely to be at least somewhat familiar with that term as
the usual and traditional English translation of Aristotle's *ἀπαγωγ
communicating the one idea in
different contexts, or communicating it to different audiences.
Gary f
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 15-Jun-20 20:36
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Communicating An Idea
Gary F., Gary R., List:
GF: This approach seems to be supported by
conversation). Anyway, I think the core idea is the same
> regardless of whether we call it abduction or retroduction.
>
> Gary f.
>
> } Entering is the source, and the source means from beginning to end.
> [Dogen] {
>
> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the transition
>
&g
is the source, and the source means from beginning to end. [Dogen] {
<http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ living the transition
From: Gary Richmond
Sent: 14-Jun-20 17:41
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Communicating An Idea
Jon, Gary F, List,
Gary F w
Jon, Gary F, List,
Gary F wrote:
My tentative hypothesis is that *retroduction* is the better name because
the *retro-* prefix suggests a backward or *returning* movement of thought.
This seems to me related to Peirce’s analogy between causality and
reasoning: just as we think of *cause* > *effec
of the process, if that is needed.
Gary f.
From: John F. Sowa
Sent: 12-Jun-20 17:23
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Communicating an Idea (was commens and
commons)
Gary F, Edwina, Jon AS, List,
I am delighted to read about GF's applications of Peirce's
tation and explanation than I will venture in
this post. But I think I could give an example of communicating an idea which
would illustrate the nonlinearity or recursiveness of the process, if that is
needed.
Gary f.
From: John F. Sowa
Sent: 12-Jun-20 17:23
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PE
Gary F., List:
I changed the subject line only because the subject being addressed had
changed, and I am happy to resume the discussion of "Communicating an Idea."
In Peirce's late writings, he is consistently inconsistent about whether to
use "abduction" or "retroduction" when referring to the k
Jon Alan,
I agree... It is sometimes the price to pay to keep the coherence of our
formal constructions and personally I assume them totally ... and I think
that you will notice if I deviate too much from it; and I will take it
into account ... that's how I understand the mind of the laboratory.
Jon, I understand your motive for changing the subject line, but I’ve changed
it back because I’d like to return to the subject of “Communicating an Idea.”
(Common sense should tell us that any study of “certain aspects of Peirce’s
thought” will include some aspects (or “objects”) and exclude ot
Robert, List:
I do not rule out anything except misrepresenting Peirce's own views as
expressed in his actual writings. All I ask is that we strive to be honest
about how our terminologies, conceptual frameworks, and analyses of the
universe deviate from his.
Thanks,
Jon S.
On Sat, Jun 13, 202
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Robert, list - yes, you are right. Such a 'corset' approach of
purity, rejecting new areas of the Peircean framework, would indeed
be a denial of the spirit of Peirce's work. It would transform it
from being a framework f
Jon, List
Jon I suppose that in this search for coherence in "certain aspects of
Peirce's thought" you do not rule out using mathematical objects which are
appeared in ulterior development of this discipline that was not at his
disposal more than 100 years ago? Otherwise, wouldn't the pure appro
Gary F., List:
Thanks for your comments. I am indeed eager to recognize and explore
the *evolution
*of Peirce's thought over the course of his life as reflected in his
manuscripts, which is why I always provide the year of publication or
composition whenever I cite or quote him, and I encourage o
Gary F, Edwina, Jon AS, List,
I am delighted to read about GF's
applications of Peirce's writings to the issues that Edwina copied:
"the continuity between the processes of semiosis and those of
life
itself" and "the recursive and nonlinear nature of
those processes".
In 2006, I wrote an articl
Gary F:
I was rather astonished to read your comments that you were
interested in both
"the continuity between the processes of semiosis and those of life
itself" and "the recursive and nonlinear nature of those processes";
and
" such real-world (biological/p
Jon A.S. (and list),
That is a very interesting discovery, and I look forward to your complete
transcription of R 787. It occurs to me that much of your recent contribution
to the list and to Peircean scholarship has been to restore the integrity of
Peirce’s manuscripts, which (as the late John
Jon Alan, List
Thank you Jon Alan. Your post shows us the good side of your "radical"
literalism . It also highlights how the Collected papers which play a very
great role to publicize Peirce was fundamental but they also introduced
great difficulties that the chronological edition will resolve
26 matches
Mail list logo
