Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Franklin, I have read the three volumes by Pape, and read a lot in the commens dictionary, and secondary literature, but I agree, that I should read more before taking part here in the future. Just now, to what I have meant by this second kind of dynamical object: It is the sign class, which the

Units of the Universe (was) Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Universe as a Self-Organizing Musical Instrument (USOMI)

List, John, Sung: Gentle responses inserted. :-) On Nov 14, 2015, at 4:49 AM, John Collier wrote: > Jerry, > > Isn’t this just a straightforward consequence of Fourier analysis? Of course, yes. My first sentence is merely a factual statement. > Are you implying that Fourier analysis

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Helmut, I'm not aware of the three volumes of Pape or what they contain. Looking it up just now, I see it seems to all be in German? So it's hard for me to gauge the work. Are these translations of Peirce's papers, or is it original work by Pape that discusses CSP's philosophy, or both? I am not

RE: Units of the Universe (was) Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Universe as a Self-Organizing Musical Instrument (USOMI)

Jerry, It is fairly obvious that we disagree about ontological commitment. When I talk of "its" I am talking about existents, not merely realities. Likewise, when I talk of "bits", which I take to be grounded in existent distinctions. So I don't know what it would mean to in addition to

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Helmut, I'm not familiar with those volumes, and when looking around I was unable to locate an English equivalent by Kloesel. Yes, I agree, the Collected Papers are expensive; I was fortunate to get them from Intelex before they stopped selling them to individuals. There is also a copy of the CP

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Jeff, list, I changed the subject. I hope that is not objectionable, in the case that any reply is made to what I have to say. After looking at the two attachments more carefully, I have some comments. I would, however, like to emphasize that I have not been thinking much about this subject for

Re: Units of the Universe (was) Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Universe as a Self-Organizing Musical Instrument (USOMI)

List, John: On Nov 14, 2015, at 12:54 PM, John Collier wrote: > Jerry, > > It is fairly obvious that we disagree about ontological commitment. Yes. JLRC > When I talk of “its” I am talking about existents, not merely realities. > Likewise, when I talk of “bits”, which I take to be

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Vol. 2 of Collected Papers, on Induction

Jeff, Again, just to note in case you didn't see my other post, I thought it better to move discussion to a more appropriately titled thread, in case you are interested in responding. On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Franklin Ransom < pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com> wrote: > List, > > I think it

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Franklin: On Nov 14, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: > I understand that the diagrams are an attempt to show how rhemes are > incorporated into dicents, and then how dicents are incorporated into > arguments, and thus to show that just as a rheme can be nested in a dicent by > the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments

Jerry, I am referencing the diagrams that Jeff attached to his last post, under the subject thread "Vol. 2 of CP, On Induction" and never meant to be saying anything theoretical about diagrams in general.. -- Franklin On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Jerry

Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] The Universe as a Self-Organizing Musical Instrument (USOMI)

-- Forwarded message -- From: Sungchul Ji Date: Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Universe as a Self-Organizing Musical Instrument (USOMI) To: John Collier John, Jerry, lists, (1) John asked, "Isn’t this just a