Jack and Jon,
I have been tied up with other commitments, which have prevented me from
devoting any time to this thread. So I'm going back to one of the earlier
notes to emphasiize a very important point: Phaneroscopy is prior to
Semeiotic. The phaneron is raw experience. The only science
Jack, List:
To be honest, I am having trouble making sense of your posts so far today.
Perhaps you could boil down your alleged "proof" to a few premisses,
including your definitions of key terms like "value" and "essence," and the
specific conclusion that you see as following necessarily from
t would be a far-fetched assumption, which I donot see justified at all. So, sorry, I donot see the "itself" or "essence" of anything.
Best Regards
Helmut
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 03. Mai 2023 um 17:37 Uhr
Von: "JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY"
An: "Peirce-L"
ything.
Best Regards
Helmut
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 03. Mai 2023 um 17:37 Uhr
Von: "JACK ROBERT KELLY CODY"
An: "Peirce-L"
Betreff: [PEIRCE-L] The Thing In Itself (Kant and Peirce - Again).
I wanted to raise the topic of the ding an sich as it pertains to Peirce v
Consider all known knowledge/values and all unknown but knowable values.
E-E' (human)
Combinatorial possibility over/through "time" is that which defines the above
(all values, as such, ever derived).
But it always implies V(X).
That is, there is always an additional value to be added. Which
I wanted to raise the topic of the ding an sich as it pertains to Peirce
visavis Kant.
This has been done to death here previously, but I believe I have a reached a
proof (which I need to formalize) of the necessity of Kant's noumenal/thing in
itself. The irony of this proof is that it comes
