Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Dear all, Perhaps I ought to point out the elephant in the room. Despite your admission that: "*any *abduction whose resulting hypothesis passes the test of the PM and (ultimately) the other two stages of inquiry is a *good *abduction" why do disagreements persist and why are disputants unable

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Jon, List, You wrote: I think that the discussion over the last several days has also very helpfully clarified the distinction between logical critic and methodeutic. In particular, CP 5.189 falls under logical critic and pertains *only *to abduction, while the PM--like pragmat[ic]ism

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Jon, Gary, list and friends, In response to all those words, I say to you: one two three... *C A B*... *CP 5.189*... *as explanations of phenomena held as hopeful suggestions* STRANGER: That the dialectical method is no respecter of persons, and does not set the great above the small, but

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Gary R., List: Thanks for your kind words. I think that the discussion over the last several days has also very helpfully clarified the distinction between logical critic and methodeutic. In particular, CP 5.189 falls under logical critic and pertains *only *to abduction, while the PM--like

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Jon, Helmut, List, Nice summary statement, Jon, which the quotation brings home. This discussion has been quite valuable for me as it clarified a matter which, as I noted in my initial post on the security/uberty question, has troubled me for some time. Perhaps most helpful was seeing that

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Helmut, List: The justification of abduction/retroduction (by itself) falls under logical critic, rather than methodeutic. However, pragmat[ic]ism as methodeutic tells us how abduction/retroduction fits within a complete inquiry--the justified hypotheses that it produces are admitted or rejected

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

    Supplement: Maybe all about this is said already earlier in this thread. I am slow with catching up. Jon, list, yes. So I was wrong assuming, that talking about abduction implies a deduction. Only talking about the justification of abduction (plausibility) does. Obviously abduction is

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Jon, list, yes. So I was wrong assuming, that talking about abduction implies a deduction. Only talking about the justification of abduction (plausibility) does. Obviously abduction is something personal/individual that escapes methodeutics. So the problem of

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Helmut: I think that you are getting at what Peirce meant by *plausibility*, which indeed pertains to the justification of abduction. In your example, it is *plausible* that these white beans are from this bag that contains only white beans. On the other hand, it would obviously *not *be

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Jon, list,   you are of course right. I might replace the conclusion in the second statement with: "So for the observer person it seems possible that...". This would be a true statement, but still not a deduction, because the conclusion is not based on the premisses. I think, a deduction about

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Helmut, list: I think you’ve said something profound. You said: "So making an abduction is not pragmaticism (given that pragmaticism is deductive). But talking about abduction is, because it includes a deduction." I think listers will object to your “abduction is not pragmaticism because

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Helmut, List: I appreciate the comment, but I do not think that your example qualifies as a genuine deduction. It is not *necessarily* true that "it is possible that they are from the bag"; it might, in fact, be *impossible *for some reason, presumably having nothing to do with the color of the

Aw: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

effrey.down...@nau.edu Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 3:28 PM Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking   Jeff, list, you wrote: " Whether we call that embodied system of Ideas and Ideals "Nature" or "God" matters little t

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

http://h.raul...@gmx.de> > *To:* jeffrey.down...@nau.edu > *Cc:* Gary Richmond <http://gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L > <http://peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Friday, September 23, 2016 3:28 PM > *Subject:* Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > >

Aw: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

nau.edu Cc: Gary Richmond ; Peirce-L Sent: Friday, September 23, 2016 3:28 PM Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking   Jeff, list, you wrote: " Whether we call that embodied system of Ideas and Ideals "Nature" or "God" matters little to me--so long as w

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

bring the conflicting tendencies in our personal and > social lives into better harmony. Whether we call that embodied system of > Ideas and Ideals "Nature" or "God" matters little to me--so long as we grow > to appreciate the Beauty, Goodness and Truth of its Divine charac

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

: Friday, September 23, 2016 3:28 PM Subject: Aw: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Jeff, list, you wrote: " Whether we call that embodied system of Ideas and Ideals "Nature" or "God" matters little to me--so long as we grow to appreciate the Beauty, Goodnes

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

s was a vital analytic framework for physics. >> >> Edwina >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> *Cc:* Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

rsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2016 6:52 PM > *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > Dear Ben, list: > > > > I

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

, 2016 6:52 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Dear Ben, list: I think yours is a wonderful idea. To think Peirce could impose himself in all disciplines. If we take the disciplines to be embedded in the three Universes, then it should be matter of course

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

midt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> ; > Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2016 6:16 PM > *Subject:* Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking > > Dear List: > > I would like to come back into this discussion, but first le

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

realm support this. Edwina - Original Message - From: Ben Novak To: Jerry Rhee Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; Helmut Raulien ; Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce-L Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2016 6:16 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Dear List: I would like

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

t; Thirdness. Thirdness is the vital process of developing generalities, >> habits-of-formation. But, I read Peirce as considering that Thought as a >> generative force requires all three categorical modes. >> >> I use the term of *S*ign [capital S] to refer to the triad, the cl

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Message - > *From:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> > *To:* jonalanschm...@gmail.com > *Cc:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> ; Peirce-L > <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Saturday, September 10, 2016 9:51 AM > *Subject:* Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce'

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

9:51 AM Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking Jon, Gary, Edwina,..., list, I find it interesting, that Peirce later replaced "Quality, relation, representation" with "Quality, reaction, mediation". Might it be better to say "mediation is

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Helmut, List: Thank you for sharing these helpful reflections. As others have pointed out before, how we talk about the categories depends on what type of analysis we are performing. I am content to accept your correction of my third bullet. - All thought takes place by means of signs. -

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Ben N., List: BN: While the conceptual framework you give makes great sense ... Just to be clear, and to give credit where it is due, this conceptual framework is not "mine," it is Peirce's; or at least, it is my understanding of Peirce's. BN: For example, if you tell me that there is a barn

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Dear Edwina: Your email came while I was writing mine, and thus I did not read it before sending mine. But I think that what you quoted from Peirce at the end of yours is what I am trying to get at, namely, "...Consequently a thing in the general is as real as in the concrete" 8.14..."It is a

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Dear Jon, Jerry, Helmut, Kirsti: This chain of emails is one of the most valuable to me. Among other things, I am a longtime student of St. Anselm, whom I believe to be much closer to Peirce than has been noticed. Jon, I am particularly grateful to you for both beginning this chain with your

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Hi list, Another demonstration of CP 5.189’s vitality: C = Substance (First being) A = Being (Second being) B = Copula; things whose extremes are together touch (Third being) “since the unqualified term ‘being’ has several meanings… … if ‘being’ has many senses (for

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Helmut, List: HR: (What I have not yet got, is the difference between reality and existence: No idea) Briefly, my understanding of Peirce's use of terminology is that existence is a subset of reality--everything that exists is real, but not everything that is real exists. All three Universes

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Kirstima, list, I guess that is for a reason: Ontology is the theory of what is, and "is", being, is caused by a predicate, which is something percieved, so something known (epistemology), added to a thing, that otherwise would lack reality (or was it existence?), would not even be a thing? I

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Kirsti, List: Please elaborate--which frame does not fit? Thanks, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:09 AM, wrote:

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

List, Did CSP ever use as a dichotomy the distincition between ontology vs. epistemology? I think not. That would be against his basic views. This frame just does not fit. Kirsti Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 7.9.2016 00:43: Helmut, List: Peirce's "Neglected Argument" is certainly NOT the

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Jon, list, I guess that a deductive proof of both is not possible. The nature of thinking though is proven by obviousness, I would say, like to say: I think, therefore I am, obviously I am, therefore I think. Sounds like a deduction, but the premiss "obviously I am" contains the concept of "I",

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Hi list: The "theory of the nature of thinking"...one or many? How would you know and how would you convince others? *“But if there is something which is capable of moving things or acting on them, but is not actually doing so, there will not necessarily be movement; for that which has a

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Helmut, List: Peirce's "Neglected Argument" is certainly NOT the same as Anselm's ontological argument, although I have seen it characterized as AN ontological argument in certain respects. In any case, I am not asking about the NA itself; I am asking about the "theory of the nature of thinking"