Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear list: Then for what reason is CP if it is simply an "arbitrarily jumbled topical arrangement of the Collected Papers"? To arrange papers with solely that purpose appears silly to me. Perhaps something is being missed or ignored. For example, what if our purpose is to find a resolution to a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear Clark, list: Well, perhaps it can happen faster if they get some more funding as Peirce's popularity and awareness of his contribution grows. Best, Jerry Rhee On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:11 PM, CLARK GOBLE wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Jerry Rhee

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Edwina, Auke, listers, I wish to point out some key issues involved in my earlier post, connected with Edwina's comments 24.10.2016 Edwina Taborsky kirjoitti 24.10.2016 16:51: ET: > "Kirsti, I like your outlines of embryos and the 'firstness' of Feelings. [I think that more research should

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 5:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Aren't Plato's Forms 'real' - even when NOT embedded within matter/concepts? Depends. Are numbers real even when not embedded within matter/concepts? After all there are numbers that have never been formally thought

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Oct 25, 2016, at 9:43 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > > I’m slowly working through the posts I missed. Allow me to repost the > relevant quote. This is 6.202-209. I think you quoted the paragraph referring > to platonism. (See the other quotes at the bottom of this post too

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Clark, List: For convenience, here is what I posted in the previous thread on Peirce's Cosmology about this passage, prompted by the similar illustration of a mark on a blackboard in an earlier lecture of the same series. Is there a plausible way to integrate the two mentions of a blackboard

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 10:55 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Clark, List: > > At this point, it seems appropriate to shift this conversation to the > spin-off thread that I started last week based on Ben Novak's post and the > ones to which he was responding,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Clark, List: CP 6.185-213 is the manuscript text for the eighth and final Cambridge Conferences lecture and actually dates from 1898, not 1892-1893--thus coming *after* Peirce became a full-blown three-category realist, according to Fisch. The PDF that you linked is how it appears in the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Oct 25, 2016, at 10:00 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CP 6.185-213 is the manuscript text for the eighth and final Cambridge > Conferences lecture and actually dates from 1898, not 1892-1893--thus coming > after Peirce became a full-blown three-category

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's neoPlatonism

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 6:15 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CG: I’d say it’s quite a bit earlier than that, although again I think a lot > depends upon what we mean by the terms. > > Fisch argued, convincingly I think, that Peirce did not accept the reality of >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Clark, List: CG: I usually prefer to quote from EP 2 or RLT rather than CP for reasons like this. (It’s just a pain to figure out the dates - although perhaps that’s me) It is not just you--I have come to despise not only the arbitrarily jumbled topical arrangement of the Collected Papers, but

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Oct 25, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CG: I usually prefer to quote from EP 2 or RLT rather than CP for reasons > like this. (It’s just a pain to figure out the dates - although perhaps > that’s me) > > It is not just you--I have come to