List:
FYI, PhilPapers has apparently deleted the PDF of my slides at the link
that I provided below, so I have now posted it at
https://www.academia.edu/101052113/The_Basis_of_Synechism_in_Phaneroscopy
instead.
Thanks,
Jon
On Sat, Apr 15, 2023 at 4:34 PM Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> List:
>
>
Gary F., List:
I still do not see a problematic inconsistency, let alone a contradiction,
because indeterminacy/generality and indefiniteness/vagueness are not
mutually exclusive. As I understand Peirce's mature topical conception of
continuity, the whole is general (3ns) and the parts are
My apologies, Jon,
I should have started a new thread. And to Gary, many thanks for the references.
It is not that I do not learn a great deal from the exegetical discussions. I
certainly do. And the level of discussion is very high and insightful. I much
appreciate it. Nor is it the case that
List:
I agree with Gary F. and will add that anyone is welcome to start a new
Peirce-L thread on any topic, as long as it is legitimately related to
Peirce's thought. Here is how the late Joe Ransdell put it.
Since PEIRCE-L is best thought of as a public forum, which is primarily a
place rather
Dan, it’s true that “there are many contemporary issues that are crying out for
Peircean analysis.” I’ll mention below a few publications and public venues
that carry out this analysis in one way or another. But those are aimed at
venues and audiences other than the community of students and
I really am enjoying all of this discussion. But the Peirce-L to my mind (maybe
this is its principal function and I have missed that fact) seems largely
concerned with the exegesis of Peirce (which is very important of course). But
there are many contemporary issues that are crying out for
Gary R, Jon et al.,
It might take awhile to explain why I see a difference (if not a contradiction)
between Peirce’s 1898 cosmology, which you quoted at length, and his account of
the origin of things in “Kaina Stoicheia”. This will also explain why I see KS
(written in 1901) as marking a turn
Gary,
There are many ways of interpreting the theories of science. Uninterpreted
observations are firsts. Statements about observations are seconds.
Interpretations are thirds.
All scientists of any stripe make interpretations. Pure nominalists say that
the there are no *laws* of nature,
Jon, Gary F, List,
One of the most revelatory passages -- at least for me -- relating to the
origin of the cosmos is the following (from *Reasoning and the Logic of
Things*, CP 6.191 - 198, emphasis added). Reading it supported my growing
sense at the time, several decades ago, that not only was
Vittorio, List:
Regarding your first worry, Peirce defines three different kinds of
*sequences*, which correspond to three different kinds of
philosophy--elliptical, where there is no definite starting point or
stopping point; parabolic, where the starting point and stopping point are
the same;
Harris, List:
As I understand it, Peirce's solution to Zeno's paradox is summarized in
the passage that I partially quoted on slide 19. Here is what it says
without the later ellipses.
CSP: Just as it is strictly correct to say that nobody is ever in an exact
Position (except instantaneously,
Gary F., Gary R., List:
I agree with Gary F. that we should always try to harmonize what Peirce
writes about the same subject at different times, and I agree with Gary
R.'s brief response that seeks to do just that. For Peirce, indeterminacy
is characteristic of generality, which he equates with
Jeff,
I believe that Peirce's 1903 classification provides a simpler basis for
explaining his comments about continuity.
JBD> I think Peirce's semiotic theory moves from an initial classification of
signs to a physiological account of the functioning and growth of a systems of
signs in their
Hello Jon S, Gary R and Gary F, all,
I want to think the three of you for giving presentations at the 10-minute
discussion on Zoom. I found each of the presentations and following discussion
helpful.
I'd like to respond to some of the points Gary F makes in his discussion of
"Nonlinear
John
In my new ms submitted to OUP (Charles Peirce and the Philosophy of
Linguistics) and in several recent talks I argue for the superiority of
Peircean inferentialism over Fregean compositionality, titling one chapter
Frege’s Error. This goes against many decades of work in linguistics (and
Folks,
All these issues that are being discussed are important. But I believe that we
should also consider the following questions::
1. How did Peirce's positions on these issues develop at various points in his
career?
2. How did they relate to what he learned from his own research and from
Gary F,
I too won't say much about the matter of primal 3ns, that is ur-continuity,
being at the origins of the cosmos (or not) except to briefly comment on a
snippet of a Peirce quote you gave from Kaina Stoicheia
CSP: [At the beginning there was "[u]tter indetermination. But a symbol
alone is
I know that the late Adolf Grunbaum, my former colleague at Pitt wrote on Z’s paradox: https://www.amazon.com/Modern-science-Zenos-paradoxes-Grünbaum/dp/B0006E038EI am sure you know of this, but send a link just in case. I haven’t thought much about whether a Peircean account would be
Jon, (Gary, List)
Sorry to miss your talks, but I looked at the slides posted by Jon.
I have a couple of worries about this topic that I have been puzzling over.
The first is that there seems to be a tension between Peirce's late account of
continuity and the requirement -- from the logic of
Thank you, Gary, Gary, and Jon!
Jon, you hit a lot of interesting points in your talk, and brought out many
of the most puzzling aspects of Peirce's thought to me. In "Questions
Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed for Man" he leaves us with a
promissory note to solve Zeno's paradox with regard
Jon, i have a question about your slides 20 and 23.
On #20, under the heading of Objective Idealism, your proposal is that
“Continuous/triadic semiosis is real and primordial (3ns).”
On #23, under “Defining Continuity,” you cite the “Categorial Vector:
3ns→1ns→2ns,” (the vector of
Mary,
Thank you for your response to our 10 minute thesis presentations today
and, perhaps, especially your comment that "the connections among them were
and are rich and intriguing," which was most gratifying to read. Jon is
mostly to thank for making those connections, and I personally
Thanks for the presentations today. They were well-coordinated; the connections among them were and are rich and intriguing. I look forward to further discussion. Thanks for providing slides, Jon. Mary Libertin Sent from my iPhoneOn Apr 15, 2023, at 8:44 PM, Daniel L Everett wrote:Yes, thanks
23 matches
Mail list logo
