:[295r], 1908 Aug 28). Before exploring whether and how the truth of P2
*can*, in fact, be established, I will pause here to ask a question--is all
this consistent with what you had in mind when you brought up
nominal/verbal vs. real definitions?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
S
consciousness is not an
> attribute of Mind. [Note: Peirce talks about plants and biological
> organisms operating with the actions of ‘Mind’. - which actions can also be
> understood as the Mode of Thirdness.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Sep 20, 2024, at 9:49 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
as my disagreements with him about Biblical theology,
special revelation, creeds, etc.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 5:37 PM Gary Ric
bodily sensation, God
probably has no consciousness. (CP 6.489)
So, Peirce seems to hold that embodiment is necessary for consciousness,
but not for mind; and he complains elsewhere (at some length) about
psychologists routinely confusing the two (CP 7.364-367, 1902).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt -
ic and apostolic Church.
> We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
> We look for the resurrection of the dead,
> and the life of the world to come. Amen.
>
> But many of us, even some of us who yet tenuously hold to *Cosmic*
> Christianity, do not. I think
a little of everything conceivable," from
which "nothing in particular *necessarily *resulted." As I have suggested
before, God as *Ens necessarium*, eternal pure mind, imagines an
inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of real possibilities and their combinations
(1ns), and exercises perfect fr
ut affected by him/her. Dynamical objects change. Nobody is 100%
> good.
>
> Best regards, Helmut
> *Von:* "Jon Alan Schmidt"
> Helmut, List:
>
> Again, panentheism *cannot *coherently conceive God as *Ens necessarium*
> without
> qualification, because panenthei
chanical analysis - which indeed would reject
> ’something-from-nothing’. Peirce’s examination of ’nothing’ sees it as ’not
> the nothing of negation’ but of ’nothing at all’.. a state of absolute
> nothing’ 6.215….’the nothing of not having been born’…the germinal
> nothing’..’boundless
e*. Perhaps we can revisit these areas of common
ground from our diverging perspectives in the future.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Sep 19, 202
there were *no phenomena *whatsoever, to be
the author and creator of *every phenomenon* whatsoever.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at
of
the universe as one immense sign. Panentheism thus requires either
identifying *something else* as the dynamical object of the universe--and
what could that possibly be?--or rejecting a semiosic ontology altogether.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Phi
t could ever be observed of Ideas, Occurrences, or *Logoi*"
(R 339:[295r], 1908; bold added).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, Sep 18, 2024 at 3:
in the natural numbers as a "larger" infinite
multitude, I am not aware of a "mathematical panentheism." As for
"mathematical theology," we can certainly employ mathematical models to
help explain relevant concepts, like my diagram of the universe as a
hyperbolic continuum
kewise vague, figurative, loose, and/or analogous;
which is why, later in the same manuscript, he *does not* define "God" as
"Mind" itself, but as an "analogue of a mind--for it is impossible to say
that *any *human attribute is *literally *applicable" (CP 6.502).
R
Jon
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 10:31 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <
jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> wrote:
> Jon S, List,
>
>
>
> Again. What types of definitions do you take him to be providing? For
> example, is Peirce providing nominal (i.e., verbal) definitions or real
> defin
P
2.261, EP 2:295, 1903). Hence, "God" as a proper name, although unique by
virtue of being definable, *cannot *be synonymous with "Mind" as a general
term, even if the latter is assigned a peculiar definition.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural E
tps://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00012.html> (not Peirce's
own words) to emphasize that for Peirce, "God" is by no means *synonymous *with
"Mind," even though there is a sense in which God is "pure mind"--an
analogous, loose, vague, and fig
lippians 2:5-11)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Tue, Sep 17, 2024 at 11:35 AM Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
> Jon, List,
>
> I was asking, how can God´
and scientifically untenable because "nothing
justifies a retroductive inference except its affording an explanation of
the facts. It is, however, no explanation at all of a fact to pronounce it
*inexplicable*. That, therefore, is a conclusion which no reasoning can
ever justify or excuse"
Peirce; not an organically connected *part *of God
that is somehow *within *God's being, as maintained by panentheism.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon
are describing divine
omnipresence (theism) or organic connection/containment (panentheism).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, Sep 15, 2024 at 5:07
t in Nature" or "immanent
in the Universes" in four different manuscript drafts for "A Neglected
Argument" (R 843, 1908).
- Therefore, Peirce plainly rejected both pantheism and panentheism.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, S
/peirce-l/2024-09/msg00062.html). He claims
that panentheism is compatible with *Christianity* but not that it is
compatible with (classical) *theism*. In fact, he has consistently agreed
with me that Peirce explicitly professed to be a theist and *not *a
panentheist.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt
t; that "has its being
out of time" (CP 6.490, 1908), implying a distinction from *created *mind,
which is temporal. This is presumably why he is careful to say elsewhere
that God is an "analogue of a mind" (CP 6.506, c. 1906) and "so much like a
mind ... that we may loosely s
anyone argues
otherwise, especially while claiming to be explicating *Peirce's *views;
and if that is pedantic on my part, then so be it.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitte
to have clearly recognized that his first branch of normative
science was not the same as what was commonly called "aesthetics" or
"esthetics" in his day.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christia
ames are creations of a second
order serving to render the representation of propositions possible" (LF
3/1:235, 1906). We use names to formulate propositions that together
describe arguments *retrospectively *(see CP 2.27, 1902).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structur
nd metaphysical
incompatibility of these basic tenets is obvious without scribing the
corresponding EGs and deriving "not both (classical) theism and
panentheism" from them.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christia
utually
exclusive conceptions of God and God's relationship to our existing
universe.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 11:12 AM
s beliefs," only
Peirce's philosophical writings and a few conclusions that I draw from
them, which I distinguish from his own explicit statements. We are
discussing semeiotic and metaphysics here, not religion.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synech
sign because *there are no other signs*, perfectly and completely
determinate *from God's perspective* because it is eternally present to God
and intuitively known by God *as a whole*.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christi
ledge impossible to yourself? (CP 5.416, EP 2:335-336, 1905)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 10:37 PM Gary Richmond
wrote:
&g
mical
interpretant, an actual effect of the sign that is the entire universe *prior
to that moment*.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, Sep 9, 2024
elates; the second
(patient) with respect to its object, and the first (agent) with respect to
its interpretant.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
life," but *also *(and especially) "for its thoroughly satisfactory
explanation of his whole threefold environment" (CP 6.465, EP 2:439).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitt
ible in accordance with their understanding of the world.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at
all*.
I will address the questions below about the universe as a sign in the
thread about my paper.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, Sep 8, 2024
I always try to keep
this firmly in mind when reading, contemplating, and discussing his
writings since this is a major point of difference between my personal
views and his.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.Linke
ng these two), and footnotes 19-20 in
my "Semiosic Synechism" paper <https://philpapers.org/archive/SCHSSA-42.pdf>
.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/Jon
he actual and
*Real *meteorological
conditions at the moment.
Again, there is no third object.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, Sep 7, 2024 at 2:21 PM E
hree *objects for every sign; on the contrary, he explicitly and
repeatedly states that there are *exactly two* objects, dynamical (external
to the sign) and immediate (internal to the sign). None of this is even
remotely controversial; see statement 4.5, the three Peirce quotations
supporting it, an
*necessarily* results from nothing is nothing, so the
only *rational
*explanation for "the co-reality of the three universes" (R 339:[293r]) is
the logically antecedent reality of God as *Ens necessarium*, exercising
boundless freedom or spontaneity in willing their ongoing creation.
Regard
ely rejects an
> agential a priori metaphysical authority [ defined as god] but I certainly
> don’t reject the formative authority of the generals of 3ns, or the
> productive results of chance, or the immediate effects of reaction. So-
> trying to equate that nominalist definitio
of any given phenomenon, that it is capable
of rational explanation," including "the co-reality of the three universes"
that encompass "all the phenomena there are" (R 339:[293r&295r], 1908 Aug
28), instead of treating them as somehow coming into being on their own
In
its narrower and proper philosophic sense, pantheism is any system which
expressly (not merely by implication) regards the finite world as simply a
mode, limitation, part, or aspect of the one eternal, absolute Being; and
of such a nature that from the standpoint of this Being no distinct
> universe is most certainly not adapting itself to this
> non-existent ‘external environment’.
>
> Edwina
>
> On Aug 30, 2024, at 1:25 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> List:
>
> I agree that technically, the universe as a whole cannot be accurately
> characte
ther words, the only rational basis for
rejecting their common conclusion is rejecting at least one premiss of
each; and as I have acknowledged, that usually comes down to an
individual's personal assessment of its *plausibility*.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural E
). My belief is *theistic*,
not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza.'" He also echoed
Peirce by saying, "Religions are, for the most part, bad--but religion is
not."
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lut
tive
argumentations for *anything *whatsoever "rest on a belief in the veracity
of the premisses."
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Aug 29, 2
are
entailed by the conception of God as *Ens necessarium*. Hence, as I said in
the first post of this thread, the bottom line is whether one finds it *more
*plausible that God is possibly real (P2), from which it follows that God's
reality is necessary (C2); or that God is possibly not r
t;possibly" has exactly the same meaning in P2 and P3, and
"necessarily" has exactly the same meaning in P3 and C2. Again, the only
way that C2 could be false is if either P2 or P3 is false.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Luthe
omorphic Creator concept; the one Gary R just outlined is one of
> them. I don’t consider any of them logical in the normative sense. Logic
> has its limits.
>
> Love, gary
>
> Coming from the ancestral lands of the Anishinaabeg
>
>
>
> *From:* peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui
from God the Creator who is outside
it (transcendent). In short, I maintain that Peirce's cosmology as
illustrated by the blackboard diagram *does *require an *Ens necessarium*.
After all, he says so explicitly in "A Neglected Argument" and the
contemporaneous Logic Notebook entry
traditional attributes of God can be inferred from these, as
philosophical theists such as Anselm and Aquinas have demonstrated over the
centuries.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twi
phenomena there are" (1ns/2ns/3ns) as "the
author and creator of all" observable phenomena. This is not "my reading of
Peirce," it is what his own words plainly assert.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran
1.362, EP 1:251, 1887-8)
These statements are in the very same manuscript, "A Guess at the Riddle,"
as CP 1.412 (EP 1:278); so the latter cannot be understood as positing that
the universe somehow created itself, instead of being created by God,
without uncharitably judging Peirc
dant and unambiguous testimony, Peirce believed that God as *Ens
necessarium* is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP
6.452, EP 2:434, 1908). It would be disingenuous for any purported Peirce
scholar to claim otherwise.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
St
why
Biblical theology and special revelation are ultimately articles of faith,
not inescapable conclusions of reason. They are known only by the "light of
grace," not the "light of nature" (CP 2.23, 1902).
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechis
there is an analogy,--necessarily vague
to us,--between the elements of our reason and Him. For unless there were
we could discover nothing. (R 339:[296r], 1908 Aug 29)
Peirce recognizes once again that our finite knowledge of an infinite and
therefore incomprehensible being must be analogous r
P” not being the only
alternatives. The result is that Herbart makes our every-day world to be,
at bottom, Nothing, which he calls *Schein*, while Hegel makes the same to
be, at bottom, *Ens necessarium*, which he calls *die absolute Idee*.
(SWS:267)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas,
after infinite investigation. Peirce and I (and other
theists) obviously maintain that the reality of God is one such belief.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
Peirce's hypothesis that the reality of God as *Ens
necessarium* is the most plausible explanation for the origin and order of
the universe.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / t
eirce's cosmology in general, so I will simply
summarize my own understanding--God as *Ens necessarium*, eternal pure
mind, creative of thought, imagines an inexhaustible continuum of real
possibilities and their combinations, and exercises perfect freedom in
choosing which of these to act
Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, Aug 17, 2024 at 1:06 AM Gary Richmond
wrote:
> Jon, List,
>
> I must apologize both to the List, and especially to yo
ocess, etc. Gary Richmond's six
categorial vectors (
https://cspeirce.com/menu/library/aboutcsp/richmond/trikonic.htm) are very
helpful for recognizing and exploring the different permutations.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher
ation.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 11:51 AM Helmut Raulien wrote:
>
> Edwina, Gary, Jon, List,
>
> regarding religio
d guy," I just want to set the record
straight now that all this has become public. As I said off-List, I remain
your friend and hope that we can continue to discuss other topics for
mutual edification.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philoso
paper, "Notes Toward a Definition of Philosophy" (
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41974893)--reading "the scriptures of the
tradition" as the basis for properly interpreting "the book of nature." In
the famous formulation by Anselm of Canterbury (echoing Augustine
is God) and panentheism
(the world is in God).
This is not to say that proponents of pantheism or panentheism--or, for
that matter, deism or atheism--cannot draw relevant insights from Peirce's
writings; only that his own position, by his own unambiguous testimony, was
theism, notwithstandi
f-correcting in
the long run.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 5:02 PM Gary Richmond
wrote:
> List,
>
> Eugene (Gene) Ha
s, or true continua; and the modes of reasoning about these three
are quite distinct" (CP 1.283, 1902). In the subsequent sentences, Peirce
identifies topical geometry as the study of true continua, then situates
both arithmetic (rational numbers) and calculus (real numbers) within the
study of
dentify in the
philosophical/cenoscopic sciences? What useful applications of synechism
can we identify in the special/idioscopic sciences? What additional
insights can we gain from further contemplating continuity in light of the
categories, and the categories in light of continuity?
Thanks,
*not consistent at all* with Peirce's
definition of that word in Baldwin's dictionary. It is not a term that can
be predicated of anything of which certain other terms can be predicated,
it is "an indefinite significant character."
JFS: We acknowledge that the definition of
found anything later (or better at any time) on this topic.
Later, maybe not; better is obviously a subjective judgment. I have quoted
several passages in this post alone, as well as in my previous posts, that
I believe are *better *in the sense that they are *clearer*.
JFS: My primary concern
and provides *different* words for its existent
embodiments, namely, "tokens" that are "instances" of the type (CP 4.537,
1906). Hence, the quoted passage in R L376 turns out to have no relevance
whatsoever to what we call the *possible* member of this
trichotomy--"tone," &
, the overall *size *of an EG is *not *a tone, because it
is not *significant*--it has no effect on the *meaning *of the EG.
JFS: This note answers every question, objection, and alternative that
anybody has written in all the notes on this subject.
Again, there is a stark contrast between s
taxonomies are sharp distinctions, although the necessitant typically *involves
*the existent and the possible, and the existent *involves *the possible.
For example, every sign must be *either *a seme, a pheme, or a delome; but
all delomes *involve *phemes and semes, and all phemes *invol
n," thus incorrectly
treating it as virtually synonymous with "token" instead of
"tone/tuone/tinge/potisign."
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/Jo
triadic
relationship cannot be built up from dyadic relationships. Whoever thinks
it can be so composed has overlooked the fact that *composition *is itself
a triadic relationship, between the two (or more) components and the
composite whole" (CP 6.321, c. 1907).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Ol
tive phemic temperative, a proposition
presented for contemplation whose final interpretant's purpose is to
produce self-control.
- An assertion is an imperative phemic temperative, a proposition urged
by an act of insistence whose final interpretant's purpose is to produce
*seems *congenial to audiences today because they
already have a sense of what it means, but in fact they *do not* have in
mind "Objects which are Signs so far as they are merely possible, but felt
to be positively possible" (CP 8.363, EP 2:488, 1908 Dec 25).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt
276r-277r, 1906 Apr 2), both must be embodied
in sinsigns/tokens in order to *act *as signs. In fact, every
sinsign/token *involves
*qualisigns/tones of a peculiar kind, and every iconic sinsign/token *embodies
*a qualisign.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synec
gle
non-Peircean scholar who would even consider the word 'tone'. If anybody
else has any further evidence (or just a personal preference) one way or
the other, please let us know.
Gary already provided anecdotal evidence to the contrary and expressed his
personal preference for "tone
existent "token" and
necessitant "type," even though I strongly disagree. On the contrary, I
have explicitly stated more than once that anyone is welcome to hold that
opinion and make a case for it. Nevertheless, as I have also stated more
than once, no one can accura
uone," "tinge," "potisign," and even "idea"; and I provided a
long excerpt from his Logic Notebook that has not previously appeared in
this or any other recent List thread, where he describes what he has in
mind (using "tuone") and carefully distinguishes it
ly to this post.
JFS: You said that you had read Tony's writings. I strongly urge you to
study them.
I said that I have likewise read *and *carefully studied about a dozen
articles by Tony Jappy, as well as his 2017 book, *Peirce's Twenty-Eight
Sign Classes and the Philosophy of Rep
re predicated. For example, "scarlet" and "crimson" are
different terms that both have the term "red" as a mark--anything that is
scarlet or crimson is also red. However, the *term* "red" is obviously not
a tone/potisign, it is always a token/actisign of a typ
ation, are divisible into: A.
*Potisigns*, or Objects which are Signs so far as they are merely possible,
but felt to be positively possible" (CP 8.347, EP 2:483, 1908 Dec 24).
In short, a tone/mark is a *possible *sign, distinguished from a token as
an *existent *sign and a type as a *neces
the dynamical objects of
signs (possibles/existents/necessitants).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 5:58 PM Edwina Taborsky
wrote:
&
x27;token' and 'type',
> but not 'tone'.
>
> But I have found from my lectures and writings that modern logicians,
> philosophers, and computer scientists very readily accept the trichotomy
> (mark token type), but not (tone token type). Since Peirce was
sign), or to produce self-control (for a temperative
sign); the *mode of being* of the dynamical interpretant (actual effect) is
either that of a feeling (for a sympathetic sign), that of an exertion (for
a percussive sign), or that of another sign (for a usual sign); and the *mode
of presentation*
y urge everyone to study *his *writings in light of our different
arguments, and then draw their own conclusions about *his *views based on
those texts.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmid
, which constrains the purpose of the final
interpretant. I find the former much more plausible than the latter.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu,
on the phemic sheet without *any
*attached
lines of identity, if that were allowed in Beta EGs--the interpretant as
represented by the sign is presented as a possible, not an existent.
Regards,
Jon
On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 8:39 PM Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> List:
>
> It is telling that th
have *different *tones, yet be tokens of the *same *type; and two things
can have (some of) the *same *tones, yet be tokens of *different *types.
JFS: It confirms Peirce's final choice.
Indeed--his final choice of "tone" (R 339, 27 Dec 1908,
https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/dr
her
"homely" opinion about it did not sway him--especially since he was still
vacillating between these two options, and specifically *asked *her to help
him choose one?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.
dyadic relation,
coming right after its second correlate; and for the genuine triadic
relation, coming last. He *never *provided a typology with all ten
trichotomies arranged in their proper *logical *order for sign
classification--if he had done so, then there would obviously be no room
for de
ve to
add a *Delta *part [to Existential Graphs] in order to deal with modals." A
straightforward reading of that text itself is that he simply needs a new
notation to replace the unsatisfactory (broken) cuts of 1903 and
nonsensical tinctures of 1906 for representing and reasoning about
propositions i
is on RLT 151 (1898)--"That you are a good girl is much to
be wished."
[image: image.png]
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 a
rtain things are
possible." Moreover, the *only *kind of investigation that Peirce discusses
here is a mathematical demonstration.
JFS: The complexity of the investigation is the reason why Delta graphs are
a completely new branch of EGs.
Again, Peirce's *only *stated reason for n
1 - 100 of 1852 matches
Mail list logo
