Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce Trumps Whitehead?

There's some of what came later in Whitehead's work to be found in The Concept of Nature, written while he was still in England. Am I correct that he would have had fairly little chance to have run into Peirce's work at that point? -- Brian Burtt > On Aug 6, 2014, at 8:39 PM, Kelly Parker wrot

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce Trumps Whitehead?

Jack: When I took a Whitehead seminar with Donald Sherburne in grad school I was likewise struck by the similarities between Peirce and Whitehead, and asked him about it. The fact that ANW was at Harvard was especially interesting--Peirce had to be in the air, at least, but as far as I know, AN

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce Trumps Whitehead?

Thanks Vic, It seems my observation is fairly common in the field, but, having recently finished reading Penrose's "Road to Reality", I'm simply delighted to find something I can actually get my teeth into w/o needing 10 years post-doc training in Mathematics (especially as I've but a BA Psych/Math

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce & Carus's 1913 translaton of the Tao

I should add that I didn't mean that "light of reason" could translate 'tao' either, which I think is clear from the several translations provided. GR *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce & Carus's 1913 translaton of the Tao

Who uses well their light holds to the bright and from the body wards off blight and hides what does not change from human sight. >From my "The New Tao" *@stephencrose * On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > Phyllis, list, > > I agree that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce & Carus's 1913 translaton of the Tao

Phyllis, list, I agree that 'reason' would be a very poor translation of 'tao' in the* Tao Te Ching*. But I don't think this is what Peirce, or Carus for that matter, means. Peirce writes: . . .The opinion just now referred to, that logical principles are known by an inward light of reason, call

[PEIRCE-L] PEIRCE-L] Peirce & Carus's 1913 translaton of the Tao

Thank you, Khadmir. I doubt I could access those archives. I don't need the information, just struck by the Peircean-like use of Reason for Tao. From my experience, it is not an entirely comfortable word to use for Tao, either, as the Tao itself provides the definition of Tao, but Reason does no

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce & Carus's 1913 translaton of the Tao

Phyllis, I am not sure, but you might try looking into the Carus archives at SIU-Carbondale if you really need an answer. They have a lot of that material there--I was a research archivist for the Carus archives for a year and saw much of that. Sadly, I didn't work on that part of the archive. Per

[PEIRCE-L] Peirce & Carus's 1913 translaton of the Tao

Listers, I am reading Paul Carus's translation of the Tao, in which he uses the term, Reason, for Tao. E.g. " The Reason that can be Reasoned is not the eternal Reason." Since Carus & Peirce were connected, does anyone know if use of the term, Reason, for Tao comes from Peirce, or relates to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

I agree with Gary R's sense of this but would stress that it is precisely in the context of a perceived sign that creative analysis can and perhaps should appear. This is the premise of 'triadic philosophy' and the only way I can see to arrive at measurable results - which I would see as the aim of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:6231] Re: biosemiotics is the basis for

John, You wrote: I am aware that Peirce can be interpreted as thinking we can be aware of firsts as unclassified "feels". This is what I think led C.I. Lewis (among other considerations) to describe uninterpreted experiences as "ineffable". I don't see the sense of this, but I do think we can ab