corollarial and theorematic deduction.
Eternal conceivability is not a pragmatic or pragmaticistically
meaningful concept.
gary f.
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: 17-Jan-15 7:35 AM
To: Howard Pattee Cc: Peirce List Subject:
[PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions : Chapter 8
Re: Gary
List, Jon:
On Jan 17, 2015, at 3:32 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
But I can assure you that mathematicians as a rule, including Peirce, regard
mathematical objects as “having properties”, which makes them “real”
according to the technical Scholastic definition of “real” that Peirce always
uses
Re: Gary Fuhrman
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15405
But we have no conception of inconceivable consequences.
Jon
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
On Jan 16, 2015, at 9:16 PM, Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net wrote:
Howard,
There has historically been a lot of
be no difference between
corollarial and theorematic deduction. Eternal conceivability is not a
pragmatic or pragmaticistically meaningful concept.
gary f.
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net]
Sent: 17-Jan-15 7:35 AM
To: Howard Pattee
Cc: Peirce List
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions
concept.
gary f.
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: 17-Jan-15 7:35 AM To: Howard
Pattee Cc: Peirce List Subject:
[PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions : Chapter 8
Re: Gary Fuhrman
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15405
But we have no conception
:
[PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions : Chapter 8
Re: Gary Fuhrman
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15405
But we have no conception of inconceivable consequences.
Jon
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY
or pragmaticistically meaningful
concept.
gary f.
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net] Sent: 17-Jan-15 7:35 AM To:
Howard Pattee Cc: Peirce List Subject:
[PEIRCE-L] Re: Natural Propositions : Chapter 8
Re: Gary Fuhrman
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce
Gary, List,
We've been through these issues so many times before
that I can't think of anything new to say right off.
Pragmatic Maxim (PORT, Ontology, Peirce, SemioCom Lists : April-June 2002)
☞
http://web.archive.org/web/20070705085032/http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/thrd25.html#04226
☞
Re: Gary Richmond
At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15362
Gary, List,
Just off-hand I would have to say that the most important criterion in regard
to iconicity is
relevant iconicity. The analogy, the icon, and the morphism are of
imagination all compact.
The
Gary R, lists,
Regarding your point about simplicity, which is well taken: What I had in
mind was the tendency of people (unaccustomed to Peircean perspectives on
iconicity) to think of the typical icon as something like a stop sign, or
the sign on a washroom door, or the mini-graphics on our
10 matches
Mail list logo
