CE-L@list.iupui.edu> >
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's methodology
Gary, I admit that I saw in your post an attempt to lower the role of
mathematics on the path of research in Peirce's semiotics. My apology is that
this has been an issue close to my heart for almost 40 years. So it
t;
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> *From:* robert marty
> *Sent:* 6-Aug-20 18:39
> *To:* Gary Fuhrman ; Peirce-L >
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's methodology
>
>
>
> Gary, I admit that I saw in your post an attempt to lower the role of
> mathematics on
Robert M, Gary F, List,
Before saying anything else, I'll remind
everybody of two points: (1) theorematic reasoning is a special case of
diagrammatic reasoning. (2) In Peirce's classification of the sciences,
there is a two-way flow of information: every science (including every
branch of
you posted
of your lattice diagram makes good sense to me. I hope I wasn’t too hard on you
in that last post of mine. Maybe I’m getting a bit cranky in my old age.
Gary f.
From: robert marty
Sent: 6-Aug-20 18:39
To: Gary Fuhrman ; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's
ith his ethics of
> terminology). But if you prefer to carry on with your “blood sport,” count
> me out.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> *From:* robert marty
> *Sent:* 6-Aug-20 05:29
> *To:* Gary Fuhrman ; Peirce-L >
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's methodo
on with your “blood sport,” count me out.
Gary f.
From: robert marty
Sent: 6-Aug-20 05:29
To: Gary Fuhrman ; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's methodology
Gary F., List
It's not a response and my post was not an attack but a counterattack to your
exploitation of the quote from
Gary F., List
It's not a response and my post was not an attack but a counterattack to
your exploitation of the quote from John's post, in conjunction with your
insistence on the term "imaginary" :* "The relevance to John's original
post, as i see it, is this: if theorematic reasoning
is only a
Robert, answering your attack on a straw man would hardly be worthwhile, as it
is apparently based on a misquotation of my post and your own hostile reaction
to the word “imaginary.” Rather than unleash a barrage of quotes, i will just
give one example where Peirce uses that word as i did in my
Gary F., Edwina, John, Auke, List
So you're sending mathematics back into the field of the imaginary. Peirce
isn't as radical as you. He begins a simple and clear classification of
science with:
- *the mathematical sciences*: "the study of ideal constructions without
reference to their real
Jon et al.,
The basic point of my post was that the interpreter of a sign can keep its
dynamic object “in view” only by means of the indexical function of the sign,
which connects it to actual experience. Diagrammatic signs are not so good at
that.
The relevance to John's original post, as i
Jon, list,
“The object in view”? Which object is that?
A turn back to basics:
Semiosis is a kind of triadic action. Peirce (CP 5.472-3, c. 1906) explains
that the difference between ‘dynamical, or dyadic, action’ and ‘intelligent, or
triadic action’ is that the latter involves the use of
11 matches
Mail list logo
