Joe, Gary, list,
>[JOE] I AM satisfied with Peirce's account of signs in works of fiction, Ben,
>and agree with all that. I don't know why you would think otherwise.
I guess I just misunderstood you, or maybe I used too strong a word "satisfied"
-- I meant, not that you had decided that that
Well, I'll sleep on it, Gary, and
see how it looks to me tomorrow.
Joe
- Original Message -
From:
Gary
Richmond
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 8:52
PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So
what is it all about?
Joseph Ransd
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I stlll seem to see a
difficulty, Gary, in the idea of existence as reality at an instant,
which would appear to be a flash devoid of resistance even. But if the
instant is to be construed instead as something enduring across some
spread isn't it reality? Wh
I stlll seem to see a difficulty,
Gary, in the idea of existence as reality at an instant, which would appear to
be a flash devoid of resistance even. But if the instant is to be
construed instead as something enduring across some spread isn't it
reality? Why the need for the notion of exi
Joe,
That "Of course not" with which I began my last response applied to
your first question, of course, whereas the response to the second
would be "Of course!"
But let me correct something which could be misinterpreted in my longer
post of a few minutes ago. I wrote:
If this happens--and I
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Now,
is that persistence intelligible without recourse to regularity,
lawlikeness, hence reality? Wouldn't reality shrunk to the hic et nunc
be like a meaningless flash, hardly even a candidate for existence?
Of course not. All one can say, as Peirce does, is that we
Gary, Ben:
We don't normally think of a thing
as existent which is not also persistent, maintaining a certain sameness across
time in resisting: it is not only a matter of the hic et nunc. Now,
is that persistence intelligible without recourse to regularity, lawlikeness,
hence reality?
Joe, Ben,
The more I consider this issue of the "real" & the "existent" the
less certain I too am beginning to feel, I find. Joe wrote:
I don't know
whether Peirce is terminologically loose or not when it comes to "real"
as distinct from "existent" but there is something that is still
puzzli
Ben:
You say:
Joe, you'll certainly stimulate curiosity regarding your questions
regarding existence & reality. I actually thought that you were satisfied
with Peirce's account of signs in works of fiction, etc. Why shouldn't they have
their own reality? It's semiotically representationa
Joe, Gary,
Thanks, Gary, for letting me know that I'm not out to lunch on this one. I
think that you're right, that the same distinction appears, just with different
words, and when Peirce gets down to the business of defining, he's persistently
clear which words mean what.
Joe, you'll ce
I don't know whether Peirce is
terminologically loose or not when it comes to "real" as distinct from
"existent" but there is something that is still puzzling to me in that
distinction, much in the same puzzling way "quality" shows
up sometimes as firstness but sometimes as if it has the thi
Gary F, Benjamin Udell, list,
Many thanks for the warm welcome.
[[ The presence of a marking does not necessarily mean that Peirce
is the
author of the article; it can mean that he had proposed corrections
to an
article written by someone else, that he made comments on a part of
definition,
Ben, list,
Here's a good example of Peirce making the distinction real vs existent
(note especially, "the external world, (that is, the world that is
comparatively external) does not consist of existent objects merely, nor
merely of these and their reactions; but on the contrary, its most
imp
Ben & All,
Ben, thanks for continuing to make relevant Century Dictionary
material readily available for ease of list discussion. For a moment,
however, I'd like to consider not "fact" vs "event" but your question
concerning "reality" vs "actuality". You first quoted Peirce then
commented::
Gary R., Gary F., list,, also welcome to David & François,
Regarding "event" & "fact" I thought that the Century Dict. might shed a little
light.
Both "event" & "fact" appear on the PEP (UQAM)
http://www.pep.uqam.ca/index_en.pep list of the words with Peirce
documentation.
Thank you to David
Dear fellow Peirceans,
I am sorry, I am so foolish, I made a very foolish mistake in my message
to one of the Gary's
on Tue, 07 Feb 2006 when I wrote about Penrose tilings, quasi-periodic
tilings and quasicrystals.
I wrote (I cite): ¨¨(Not so serious: Wasn't there a "quasi-mind" in
Peirc
Gary,
I would agree with you in most if not all that you wrote.
[GF]re Peirce's utterance in NE that "any event, just as it exists, in its
entirety, is nothing else but the same Universe of being in its totality":
[GR][[ I think this points to just the kind of metaphysical discussion that
Pe
Gary,
re Peirce's utterance in NE that "any event, just as it exists, in its
entirety, is nothing else but the same Universe of being in its totality":
[[ I think this points to just the kind of metaphysical discussion that
Peirce wishes to avoid, that is, an analysis of what is the cause of
e
18 matches
Mail list logo
