Thanks a million, Matt. I've made the corrections and mentioned you. (I
had already made one of the corrections, but computers often show the
viewer the cache instead of the recentest live version.) Usually I
continue proofing for a while after I post something, but this time I
did only a
Thanks Ben, for telling us about this and transcribing it!
I noticed a few typos.
Pg. 6: replace [X] with C.
1. Any member of Section A not belonging to Section B may read a paper
if he has paid his subscription, but otherwise not. And the same applies
to every member of Section B not
Ben, List:
On Jul 26, 2015, at 9:29 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Jerry, you're simply using the word 'individual' in another way than Peirce
does. When Peirce uses the word 'individual' he generally means something
such as this horse (Bucephalus), that building (the Empire State Building),
Ben, Jerry, lists,
Ben: . . . . . When Peirce uses the word 'individual' he generally means
something such as this horse (Bucephalus), that building (the Empire State
Building), yonder tree (located on 7th St. in Manhattan), etc. In
Nomenclature and Divisions of Triadic Relations, as Far as They
Jerry, you're simply using the word 'individual' in another way than
Peirce does. When Peirce uses the word 'individual' he generally means
something such as this horse (Bucephalus), that building (the Empire
State Building), yonder tree (located on 7th St. in Manhattan), etc. In
Nomenclature
Ben, List:
Although we discussed aspects of this question before, fresh citations may shed
a different hue on the meaning of the CSP's usage in various contexts.
Frankly, I think that your reading of the meaning of the term symbol is to
rigid.
First, CSP's trichotomy separates the concept
Ben:
Thanks for your work in posting this work.
A minor technical question:
It is apparently the case that some pages contain only a few words.
Is there any apparent reason for this?
Is the date of the writing known to you?
Cheers
jerry
On Jul 22, 2015, at 7:32 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Thanks again, Ben.
(Where would this list serve be without you?)
After reading this again, it became obvious to me (I am a slow learner) that
the underlying issue here is the origin of symbolization with respect to
biological / human actions.
Ben, do you suppose that instinctual actions (such
Hi, Jerry, you're welcome. Yes, some of the pages contain few words. If
something looks wrong, you can check it against the manuscript online at
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:FHCL.HOUGH:12486086 (also linked at my
transcription
http://www.iupui.edu/~arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/ms831/ms831.htm )
Hi, Jerry,
You're welcome again. Now, in Peirce's view, symbols not only are
generals but also do not, of themselves, symbolize anything but
generals, so that excludes individual actions from being symbolized.
Nevertheless, a symbol that incorporates an index (supplied by one's
mind or more
10 matches
Mail list logo
