to phenomenology)
would relate to thought about this vague thing and would look more like the
second. A reaction. That could still make Pierce among many other (some
prior) things a phenomenologist. There now, in Rem's diction, I've said too
much.
Stephen C. Rose
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Gary
As a non-academic writer and editor I agree. One term cannot fit all. Best,
S
Stephen C. Rose
*My Associated
Contenthttp://www.associatedcontent.com/user/815562/stephen_c_rose.html
*
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Jerry LR Chandler
jerry_lr_chand...@me.com wrote:
List:
The recent
As a lifetime generalist communicator with always much to learn and amend, I
find this a salient bit of advice to any and all. I mean the part about
being aware of ones own fallibility and further taking to heart what it
signifies if one does not take the community as the rationale for
I think CP evidences a certain mild disdain toward the transcendentalists
and is not much enamored of Emerson, not to the extent that Nietzsche was
for example. I probably could reference this if it is not generally agreed
that this is the case. Cheers, S
*ShortFormContent at Blogger*
As a confirmed long-term exile from academia and professional existence, I
see Peirce as a role model for nomads of the universe - he might pluralize
universe. I think the best thing Peirce-inclined academics can do is
demonstrate in readable prose - as here of late - ways Peirce anticipated
.
** **
Gene
** **
** **
*From:* C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] *On
Behalf Of *Stephen C. Rose
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 05, 2011 2:31 PM
*To:* PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
*Subject:* Re: [peirce-l] intelligent slaves
** **
Let me
I assume drawing from the same text that this is CSP's considered
conclusion, wherewith he trumps these seductive notions in his defense of
sentimentality. (Dorry the quote seems to wish to narrow itself a bit.)
*
Here, then, is the issue. The gospel of Christ says that progress comes
from
I would be interested in reactions to my various efforts to popularize or
apply the thinking ogf CSP to ongoing events. I am not looking so much for
reactions to my opinions or POV as the question of how a figure like Peirce
comes to influence events and whether and how the process inevitably
I shall with fear and trembling venture a short explanation of the movement
to cyberfy the world. It signaled the end, bitter and ongoing, of oil and
the car. The PC became the new car, with requisite lingo about speed and so
forth. And availability to all. It was a market force toward the
For what it may be worth, else ignore. I have just started Peter's book
which is now 30 years old which seems young to me as most of mine were
published before the 80's. I want to make what may be a cliched observation
or a simplistic one. It seems to me we would do well to frame (at least)
** **
*From:* C S Peirce discussion list [mailto:PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] *On
Behalf Of *Stephen C. Rose
*Sent:* Saturday, February 04, 2012 1:24 PM
*To:* PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
*Subject:* Re: [peirce-l] Knowledge Workers of the World, Unite !
** **
For what it may be worth
Would this qualify as a Peircean poem?
How about no war in Iran http://ping.fm/kCcFs
*ShortFormContent at Blogger* http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/
-
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
The main thing that interests me is whether this simple appropriation of
Peirce - as one to whom we can refer powerful arguments against binary (you
versus me) thinking and for triadic thought (always tending toward a
positive resolution even if it takes try after try) - is important to
advance.
1. Hypothesis (Abduction)
2. Induction 3. Deduction
But isn't it also the case that we can mix firsts, seconds and thirds if we
think it appropriate. As in Terms Propositions Symbols.
Best, S
*ShortFormContent at Blogger* http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/
On Fri, Mar 2,
I asked this question on Quora. It then occured to me that folk here might
want to weigh in. Quora is an interesting venture based entirely on
answering questions. Here's the url for the CSP question -
http://www.quora.com/Have-you-ever-heard-of-Charles-Sanders-Peirce
*ShortFormContent at
If the way history is made is through willed values, those values were
there before we were. They are ontological. I think the confusion in Peirce
is his relegation of ethics to the aesthetic. Kierkegaard did a similar
thing when he essentially sidelined the ethical. I muse that the semiotic
realm
It seems to me that if there is a conflict between nominalism and
realism/idealism which plays out in history that it is important to delve
deeper. Peirce made spiritual or transcendent or musement matters subject
to experiment - human progress had to be real. Where I think I disagree is
in not
Here is a somewhat corrected version of my reply to Terry.
Best, S
I have little place for ethics in such a system as I have. I see ethics as
secondary to the willed application of values to the making of decisions.
To me the question is what are the ontological values. My pragmatic answer
came
What is currently working well on the list? What, if anything, could be
improved?
If we should promote it, it would help to have a paragraph with succinct
directions that all could use. I have been very impressed with the quality
of posts and the civility here.
What are our goals with this
Here is an example:
Fallibilism applies to both scientists and religionists http://ping.fm/a5wzV
*ShortFormContent at Blogger* http://shortformcontent.blogspot.com/
-
You are receiving this message because you are
I am waiting for the day when values replaces ethics as a base term for
discussing morality and, if a hierarchy is pertinent, when ontological
values would be right up there wherever thought (musement) begins. I think
we have confused virtues and characteristics with values from the gitgo.
(See
The wonders of Google,
Commens Peirce Dictionary: Thirdness, Third [as a
category]http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html:
Thirdness, Third [as a category]
(see also Firstness, Secondness, Categories)
Careful analysis shows that to the three grades of valency of
in this matter.
Therefore I raise another question: “Does Peirce raise a distinct
separation between the human being as the only linguistic animal, and if
so, where, and if not, where?”
-
Gary C. Moore
- Forwarded Message -
*From:* Stephen C. Rose
/jamesivanporter/articles
and
http://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Philology-Future-James-Porter/dp/0804736987/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1335769347sr=1-1
Regards,
Gary Moore
*From:* Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com
*To:* Gary Moore gottlos752...@yahoo.com
*Cc:* PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU PEIRCE-L
Isn't there someone who could assemble from the many good contributions to
the list a short book designed for reading beyond academe that would be
aimed at rectifying each area in which Peirce has unrecognized prominence,
importance, panache, whatever? I am sure the answer is yes. It could even
being, it may turn up that it
will be, later on. So lack of immediate response does not mean your idea
was not good. - Which was the case with Peirce's unrecognized ideas just as
well:)
Best,
Kirsti
On 2.5.2012, at 22.45, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
Isn't there someone who could assemble from
26 matches
Mail list logo
