Jeff, I'm sure I must be missing something here, so I'd better take it one
question at a time ...
When you say (iii) that "I determines (O-S)", does that mean that the
Interpretant determines the Object-Sign relation? That would seem to mean
that the Interpretant determines whether the sign is
Dear Edwina,
Yes, thanks for adding the context of mind to brain, the Peircean
view, in one sense that brain is involved in mind, but also that mind is
much broader than brain, and that there many cases of mind not involving
brain.
Gene
On Sep 16, 2016 10:26 AM, "Edwina Taborsky"
Gary - first, to tell someone untruths about themselves is not a responsible
method of debate. As I said - I never said one word about my 'principles of
interpretation of Peirce' - and for you to suggest that I did, and that these
are different from ALL others - is indeed a put-down.
Second, a
Jon - again, you seem to be missing the point. When you tell another researcher
that their views are objectively different from the views of Peirce - which
views are in texts and are thus meant to be interpreted [for no text other than
a mathematical formula is outside of interpretation] , you
> On Sep 16, 2016, at 11:28 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
>
> This to me suggests that at least some of the force of the NA is “extracted”
> not from the concept of God as defined by Peirce but from the vernacular
> concept. Peirce does distinguish between the two concepts, right at the
>
Jon, list - I know and agree that Peirce uses the term 'determines' and this is
a 19th century usage but Jeff wasn't quoting Peirce in the diagrams. I think
that when one is explaining semiosis, as in Jeff's diagrams, then, one has to
be careful of the modern meaning of the term. Therefore, in
Jeff, Gary F., List:
GF: That would seem to mean that the Interpretant determines whether the
sign is icon, index or symbol. I don’t see how that could work ...
I was just thinking about how to make this same point. My understanding of
Peirce is that the sign determines the interpretant to
Edwina, list:
You said:
*until that I-O relation does indeed correlate with the R-O Relation? Isn't
this what Peirce meant by eventually arriving at the truth?*
Yes.
So, where is this object?
On this list, it's what Peirce said.
But you said different than what Jon said about what Peirce said.
Dear Edwina, Gary, list:
It would surprise me more if one did *not* get angry when truth about
interpretation is at stake.
Why do people get angry and fight about metaphors?
One two three…*thumos, eros, logos*…
Best,
Jerry R
On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Edwina Taborsky
Jerry- thanks; one of the few times I've laughed out loud at an email. You are
quite right.
Edwina
- Original Message -
From: Jerry Rhee
To: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Jon Alan Schmidt ; Peirce List
Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 7:39 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of
Edwina, List:
ET: I find the use of the term 'determines' problematic. That's because it
suggests, strongly, causality, even an efficient causality.
The term is not Jeff's, it is Peirce's; it even appears in the title of the
specific work that he referenced. It does not entail *causality*,
Gary F., List:
GF: That rules out pantheism, but not, I think, panentheism, which (as I
understand it) holds that Nature is immanent in God, not the other way
round.
Hmm, my admittedly limited understanding of panentheism is that it affirms
God to be somehow both immanent and transcendant; so
Gary F- please don't attempt to 'put me down'. I've never said one word about
'the principles which guide my interpretation of Peirce'. [I notice you refer
to my 'interpretation of Peirce' in quotes'. Why?]. Nor have I ever said a word
or explained 'my practice' of interpreting Peirce in any
Edwina, List:
Before I say anything else--I do not want to start up another tiresome
argument here; I am just taking this opportunity to attempt, one more time,
to explain my perspective.
While I am interested in your views, and Gary F.'s views, and other List
participants' views--I am MOST
Jon, thanks for this, and for your later post, which clears things up
considerably. Just a couple of responses:
JS: In R 843, he states that the NA pertains to "the Being whose Attributes
are, in the main, those usually ascribed to Him, Omniscience, Omnipotence,
Infinite Benignity, a Being
Edwina,
I think we should thank you for being so honest about the principles which
guide your “interpretation of Peirce.” You’ve explained why your practice of
interpreting Peirce does not require that “close attention to his text in its
context” which I stated to be my criterion. But it’s
16 matches
Mail list logo
