Re:Tyler Bennet
At:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14779
Peircers,
The Peirce I have known for nigh unto the last 50 years is not much in evidence
on the Peirce List anymore, so I'll just limit myself to one general observation
that I've made before and then hope
At 09:40 AM 10/20/2014, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Howard wrote: That is only a narrow human view of nominalism. I
think Peirce's view of Tychasm and Agapism is more radical. He
generalizes signs, interpreters, mind, habits, and love to the
entire natural world.
Edwina: What do tychasm and
Howard - I think I begin to see your viewpoint but I think you have a very
personal definition of some terms.
You don't mean to say that 'nominalism existed before humans' - or do you?
Nominalism is, by definition, a perspective that exists only within human
cognition. It says that knowledge
Howard, Edwina, Stan, Gary R, Gary F, Frederick, lists,
What I don't understand is why can't we extend nominalism, whatever it
is, beyond the human mind to living cells, when Peirce himself extended
the concept of Mind to crystals and that of Propositions to non-linguistic
things ? Are we all
List,
Sung was responding in the context of about 10 messages in the biosemiotics
list where, by the way, I think this discussion should remain (that is, not
on peirce-l). I won't copy all those messages, but the last one before
Sung's was sent by me and reads:
*Howard, *
*Semiosis is a process
Gary R - I can understand, since you are (to my knowledge) one of the
moderators of the Peirce-L list, that you can decide that the discussion some
of us have been having only on the biosemiotics list should not be extended to
the Peirce-L list. But I don't think that you can decide what the
Edwina,
I agree with you both that (a) it goes without saying that members of the
biosemiotics list should feel free to discuss whatever they wish to and (b)
that it would have been helpful to have changed the Subject line from one
pointing to the NP seminar.
I sent my post to the Peirce forum