Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Original Message - > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:35 PM > *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness,

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:35 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation Edwina, List: Sorry, you lost me; I do not see where anyone was talking about "the aspatial and atemporal Platonic Form" or

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

mus.ca> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 7:54 PM > *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation > > Edwina, List: > > I can see how a model could be characterized as a genuine Idea in this > Pei

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

are vague termsso, I won't go into that. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jon Alan Schmidt To: Edwina Taborsky Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 7:54 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation Edwina, List: I can see how a model

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

mail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> ; Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> > ; Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 5:34 PM > *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdnes

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Cc: Jerry Rhee ; Helmut Raulien ; Peirce-L Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 5:34 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation Edwina, List: Jerry's first quote is from Peirce's NA (CP 6.452). He is obviously not here talking about "the absolutely incogni

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

or...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> ; Jon Alan Schmidt > <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 17, 2016 3:11 PM > *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation > > Edwina

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

2016 3:11 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation Edwina, Thank you for that contribution. I think you touch on an extremely important point. This concept of whether we can complete growth of concrete reasonableness or whether we will forever be in a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

(First apologies. I’ve not had time to read Peirce-L for a while. So forgive me if I misread due to not having fully read all the posts in the thread or repeat something someone else said) > On Aug 16, 2016, at 10:46 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > You wrote: > > [JR]

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

> On Aug 17, 2016, at 1:11 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > > I am of the opinion that it can be perfected for a given situation and only > in a particular way. That is, I believe that we can achieve a model of the > perfection of an Idea in the following sense: > > “Some

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

ather than the operation of the universe, is similar. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jerry Rhee To: Helmut Raulien Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce-L Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 2:27 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Edwina, Many authors have interpreted Peirce's ultimate aim/growth of concrete reasonableness/his *summum bonum*. I would recommend, Potter, Parker, Sorenson and Thellefsen, among many others... I think a good place to start in Peirce is with the question, "What does right reasoning consist

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

        Suppsupplement: Please replace, in the third line from here, "induction" with "abduction". Supplement: But maybe too, what I have written below is wrong: An abduction delivers a possibility, i.e., before the abduction was done, one didnt know whether something was possible or not,

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

    Supplement: But maybe too, what I have written below is wrong: An abduction delivers a possibility, i.e., before the abduction was done, one didnt know whether something was possible or not, and after the induction it is known that it is possible. So there is a concrete step, a grown

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

rn Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2016 9:12 AM To: Jerry Rhee Cc: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation Jerry R., List: JR: Even though the parts

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jerry R., List: JR: Even though the parts are all wrapped around each other, I have experienced the abduction/deduction/induction cycle, in that order, one two three. That is indeed the proper order of the stages of inquiry, but it does not correspond to the names of the categories. Abduction

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

List, about growth of concrete reasonableness: I think, this is mostly done by induction. Abduction delivers a reasonableness without a value or predicate such as "concrete". Induction delivers a growth of the reasonableness, and deduction makes the reasonableness concrete in the meaning of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jerry - list You wrote, in response to Jon: JON: So what is the purpose of an argument? Per the definition in NA, it is to produce a definite belief. JERRY: Peirce’s ultimate aim was growth of concrete reasonableness. So, CP 5.189 makes a claim that it will promote that purpose since it

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jon, list: You said: Now, as you noted, this implies that in some sense, best=normative and argument=abduction; but the question remains, in what sense? As Ben suggested, "better" and "best" are only meaningful relative to a specific purpose. That’s right. I would request that list

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jerry R., List: I am sorry for the repeat message, but now that I am home and able to use a real computer, I see that for some reason my phone cut off the end of it, and yet retained reams of previous ones that I thought I had deleted. The following is what I actually intended to send. In

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

t;> are beings, in some ways natural, in other ways artifactual, but either >> way, with histories. ... >> >> …eternally live metaphors are either ones whose content is extendable >> indefinitely, yielding richer and richer interpretations without end the >> more we

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

hat live and die, >> are beings, in some ways natural, in other ways artifactual, but either >> way, with histories. ... >> >> …eternally live metaphors are either ones whose content is extendable >> indefinitely, yielding richer and richer interpretations without end the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

ation every > single law should have a suitable preamble at the beginning; for that which > is to follow is most important, and it *makes all the difference whether > we clearly remember the preambles or not*. > > “Let this, then, as I was saying, be laid down by us … > > And n

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

niversity of New York C 745 718 482-5690 <tel:718%20482-5690> * On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca <mailto:tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: Ben - excellent post. Clear, succinct - and valid in all points. Thanks. Edwina - Original

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jerry R., List: Thank you, this response did help me better understand your thought process. Setting aside the historical issue of what Peirce actually said/believed, and granting your "ironic" reading of the quote that you cited, we can now identify your hypothesis ("CP 5.189 is the best form

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

f iconicity. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jerry Rhee To: Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce-L Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 10:53 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation Jon, list: you said: In your way of thinking, in accordance with CP 5.189, is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jon, list: you said: In your way of thinking, in accordance with CP 5.189, is "Peirce says that CP 5.189 is the best form of argument" an example of C (surprising fact) or A (explanatory hypothesis)? I am saying that my statement is A. A is then, my explanatory hypothesis to C, where C

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation Hi Ben, Jon, list, Thank you for your objections. You’re right that I’m not being straight with you but I wanted to smuggle in some rules before I giv

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jerry R., List: You’re right that I’m not being straight with you but I wanted to smuggle > in some rules before I give my response. > Why "smuggle"? That is not very conducive to helpful dialogue. Why not just be straight with us? > I’ve said something similar in the past, so I knew what to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

e <jerryr...@gmail.com> > *To:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2016 6:13 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation > > Hi Ben, Jon, list, > > > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

ouldn't be that hard to find the actual text. Edwina - Original Message - From: Jerry Rhee To: Gary Richmond Cc: Peirce-L Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 6:13 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation Hi Ben, Jon, list, Thank you for your objec

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

t;* > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Ben - excellent post. Clear, succinct - and valid in all points. Thanks. >> Edwina >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

ist.iupui.edu > *Sent:* Monday, August 15, 2016 12:36 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation > > Jerry, Jon S., list, > > Jerry, it sounds like you're arguing against yourself. It was you who > claimed that Peirce himself thought that CP

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jerry, Jon S., list, Jerry, it sounds like you're arguing against yourself. It was you who claimed that Peirce himself thought that CP 5.189 — The surprising fact, C, is observed; But if A were true, C would be a matter of course, Hence, there is reason to suspect

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jon, list: A burstlike argument (“a simple answer”) rarely decides an issue. What if my purpose was not only to satisfy you but also to convince *all who investigate*? For instance, let's say that I provide that citation. What then? It satisfies your request but what effect will that have

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jerry R., List: JR: Do you mean Peirce did *not* say that CP 5.189 is the best form of argument? I did not say that. I merely asked exactly when and where Peirce *did* say that CP 5.189 *is *the best form of argument. That is your claim, so I assumed that you would be prepared to defend it

Aw: RE: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Gary, list, I think, that is a good nutshell package, and not foolish at all. So the ordinality depends on whether one looks at the representation or the determination. I have the impression, that one first has to buy Peirce´s usage of the terms "determination", "active", "passive", before one

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jon, Gary, Helmut, list: What? Do you mean Peirce did *not* say that CP 5.189 is the best form of argument? But how could that be? Being a philosopher, that is, hating “the lie in the soul” more than anything else, and knowing that the only moral evil is not to have an ultimate aim,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jerry R., List: I hesitate to jump in here, especially since I am currently on vacation with very limited access to the Internet; but in case it might help ... JR: But did not Peirce say that CP 5.189 is his best form of argument? Exactly when and where did he say this? Please provide a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

2 > (and many other Peirce texts). And I feel I’m still far from the entelechy, > but heading in that direction is enough, for me. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 13-Aug-16 14:47 > *To:* Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca>

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

t;g...@gnusystems.ca> Cc: Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu> Subject: Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation Dear Gary f., list: “I do not understand you” is the phrase of an angry man. Your most recent utterance is confusing to me, as interpreter, becaus

Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Dear Gary f., list: “I do not understand you” is the phrase of an angry man. Your most recent utterance is confusing to me, as interpreter, because you utter that signs and objects can each be first, second and third, although *this* cannot be a sign and object at the same time- that they

RE: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Helmut, list, Ordinality comes into semiosis with the order of determination: the object determines the sign to determine the interpretant. In that order, the sign comes second. Peirce also says that the object has to affect the sign and not vice versa. The dynamic object has to be

Aw: Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Dear Jerry, list, please give me some time to answer. I am both interested in theology and in semiotics, but at the moment there is a sort of switch between them for me I have to overcome first. Questions about God for me are charged with emotions, while questions about semiotics are purely

Aw: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Gary f., Jerry, Jeff, list,   I guess, the question about ordinality and categoriality is an interesting and relevant one. Maybe firstness, secondness, thirdness are not identical with a first, a second, a third, but maybe too, that there is a connection between these two concepts. Some months

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Gary f., list: It is a nuanced point I am making, and I am not surprised you do not understand me. Ordinality is the difference between “less correct” and correct enough for striving toward the *summum bonum*. It is an orienting of one’s horizon and no doubt, there will be resistance and

RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jerry, What you say you “disagree” with is a very loose paraphrase of what I wrote, which was a rather simple point about Peircean phenomenology and nothing more. Jeff has found some complexities in it that I was not taking into account, and I think I see what he means. You seem to be

RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Helmut, I think you’re getting much closer. But I think information also belongs more to the interpretant than to the immediate object. I would say (based on CP 8.314) that if you say to me “My dog is barking,” the immediate object is our shared collateral experience of the subject, ie. the

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Dear list: Here is a synopsis: Hence there may well be an art whose aim would be to effect this very thing, the conversion of the soul… not to put the power of sight in the soul’s eye, which already has it, but to insure that, instead of looking in the wrong direction, it is turned the way

Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

    Supplement: The example with the marsupial dog was wrong, I think, as it rather concerns the interpretant, not the object. I think the dynamic object is any existing dog, meaning someone of all existing dogs. The immediate object, the object as it is brought along with the sign, is nothing

RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

[jerryr...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 10:58 AM To: Helmut Raulien Cc: Gary Fuhrman; Peirce-L Subject: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation Gary f, list: What do you mean by “Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness are not ordinal concepts in Peirce’s phenomenology”, p

RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jerry, I mean that Firstness is not the quality of being first in a sequence or ordered collection of three (or any number of) members; Secondness is not the quality of being second in a sequence; and Thirdness is not the quality of being third in a sequence. [[ Firstness is that which

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Gary f, list: What do you mean by “Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness *are not ordinal concepts *in Peirce’s phenomenology”, please? Best Jerry R On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > Gary f., list, > > I have not read it thoroughly yet, but here an

Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Gary f., list,   I have not read it thoroughly yet, but here an example for a term/rheme, a rhematic symbolic legisign: The written word "dog", read by somebody. The immediate object is the concept of "dog" as conveyed by the sign, and the dynamic object is the concept of "dog" as it exists in

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Jerry, I don’t see what you are presenting an “alternative ordering” of. Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness are not ordinal concepts in Peirce’s phenomenology. As for grasping Peircean terminology, I think what facilitates it best is paying close attention to the context of each usage

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Thirdness, Thought and Representation

Helmut, list, As luck would have it, I was just now looking through back issues of Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society online and discovered that Winfried Nöth himself, in a 2011 article, has covered the same ground as my post, and answered your question on the origin of the use