Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Clark, list, Sorry, I got busy for a while. Immediate objects may have averageness but the averageness seems not definitive of them, and Peirce never makes it so. They may also have distinctiveness; an unusual characteristic, perhaps displayed at an unusual moment, might be a prominent part

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > Immediate objects may have averageness but the averageness seems not > definitive of them, and Peirce never makes it so. It seems to me (perhaps incorrectly) that Peirce raises everydayness for similar reasons to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> So "being" seems to be a quite boiled-down concept. "Truth" on the other hand > is a concept, that should not be boiled down like that in my opinion. I’m not sure I agree with that. It seems to me being for Peirce (and what I tend to think) being is tied to this relation of the dynamic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Dear list: Side by side with others: Can we label immediate interpretant, sign, object, coming to agreement, idea, truth, final interpretant, copula, etc., in this sequence? "The “what is” questions point to “essences,” to “essential” differences- to the fact that the whole consists of parts