Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R, list. First - enjoy the house-guests - and I'm sure you'll be busy for the next few days. My busy time starts next week. As for the linearity of input-mediation-output, no, it's not linear, since

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Edwina, list, Thanks for the clarification. I think we may be getting closer on these matters while, as you probably know from past exchanges, I don't subscribe to your model of semiosis as input -> mediation -> output. To use an expression you sometimes employ, I see it as too linear a model of

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R, list In clarification, I'd say that within the semiosic triad, the Object is providing input data, the Representamen is providing mediation; the Interpretant is providing output conclusion. Essentially,

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Edwina, Gary f, John, List, Edwina wrote: By giving them a different name [ sign, its object, its interpretant] and the use of the term 'its' - the way I see it is that Peirce is pointing out that they function, not as separate Subjects but as interactive forms, each with a different function,

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

List - my few comments are 1] I don't think that Peirce confined semiosis to 'life', understood as biological, but included the physic-chemical realm as well. 2] And yes, semiosis is a 'process' - a term for which I've been chastised on this list for using - but it

Re: RE: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

I’m going back to studying Peirce’s Lowell lectures — my way, of course: I’m not finished with reading Peirce as you are. Gary f. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: 13-Dec-17 08:50 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; g...@gnusystems.ca Subject: Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Low

RE: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

back to studying Peirce’s Lowell lectures — my way, of course: I’m not finished with reading Peirce as you are. Gary f. From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] Sent: 13-Dec-17 08:50 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; g...@gnusystems.ca Subject: Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

I meant fallible! amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > Peirce is intelligible in the way anyone else is -- randomly and > imperfectly. See Shakespeare scholarship over time. My favorite example of > the miasm that applies

Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Peirce is intelligible in the way anyone else is -- randomly and imperfectly. See Shakespeare scholarship over time. My favorite example of the miasm that applies to comprehension is the typical greeting one gets after a sermon. On examination what the person is lauding is her own hearing which

Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Gary F, list I disagree with you. I don't think that you have a right to assert that 'all I ask of an interpreter of Peirce' is. You and I are equal - and this sentence of yours denies that equality and instead inserts you as The Authority on How To Read and Understand

RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Edwina, All I ask of an interpreter of Peirce is that he or she read the whole text, exactly as Peirce wrote it at the time and in the context he was working in, and see for themselves what it means — realizing that its implications for the reader might differ from the implications of a

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Gary F, list I guess we'll just continue to disagree. I don't consider that I've given a 'very free translation' of 1.346-7 which sounds rather denigrating of my view. I wasn't translating at all, but reading and understanding it. You read and understand it

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Edwina, list, While I think that a kind of temporary consensus is sometimes necessary in science--for example, when we can assume that we understand certain physical laws well enough to develop technologies based on that understanding--for the most part, and, as you, Mike, and I have all noted,

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Heh - but I'm not a fan of Hegel or indeed, of any utopian idealism...which 'absolute truth' seems to me, to hover around. I think that one can't get away from the realities of Firstness and Secondness [entropy

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Dear list, To better honor Peirce, *Absolutum means finished, perfected, completed..* *Absolutum a termino. A term is said to be absolute which can of itself be the subject or predicate of a complete proposition.. * *.. ‘Doctrines of the Absolute,” saying that to think is to limit;

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Hi Edwina, list: You said, “Agreed - we shouldn't seek consensus. “ J "it is unlikely that you are not mistaken but why such absolute truth?" In this way Hegel advances until he reaches the 'Absolute Idea', which, according to him, has no incompleteness, no opposite, and no need of

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Edwina, Mary, Gary f, list, I can't say that I experience the *horror* that Edwina does with the use of the triangle for specific analyses and, in point of fact, Peirce himself uses is for certain purposes (see, for example, the famous diagram of the classification of signs which he sent to Lady

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Mary, list - I fully agree with you. I have always been horrified - and I mean the word - by the use of the triangle to portray the semiosic triad. It is, in my view, so completely wrong, for it sets up a closed linear