Jim, Gary, list,
>[Jim] Ben Udell wrote:
>>[Ben] But first, on a general note, let me say that among the issues driving
>>my current display of confusion & error, is the question: if comprehension
>>is for quality & predicate, while denotation is for objects
>>(resistances/reactions), then wh
Jim, Ben, list
Jim wrote:
An object is anything that can be represented. Abstract objects such
as relations also have forms and locations that can be connoted and
denoted as discussed below.
It is my view (and I think Peirce's) that words or symbols such as
"not", "probably", "if" etc re
Bernard Morand wrote:
Nice Jim! I had the feeling that I was blundering just at the time of
writing that the categories in the sense of maths have no denotation nor
connotation . However I could not see where the blunder was. So I decided
to let the idea as it was and see what will happen.
Ben Udell wrote:
But first, on a general note, let me say that among the issues driving my
current display of confusion & error, is the question: if comprehension
is for quality & predicate, while denotation is for objects
(resistances/reactions), then what dimension is for representational
Joe, list,
> [Joe] You say "if the connotation is, as Peirce says elsewhere, the meaning
> or significance which gets formed into the interpretant," Where does Peirce
> say that, Ben? That sounds like a mistaken paraphrase.
I did back down somewhat after Gary's off-list response and suggeste
Helmut,
My earlier message may have been unclear, but what i meant was pretty
much equivalent to what you say here:
[[ In a general sense, Peirce did indeed anticipate the possibility of
non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The possibility of new types of order in
far-from-the-equilibrium situations w
Ben, list,
You say "if the connotation is, as Peirce says elsewhere, the meaning or
significance which gets formed into the interpretant," Where does Peirce
say that, Ben? That sounds like a mistaken paraphrase. Also, I don't know
what is meant by speaking of meaning "in the sense of acceptat
Dear Gary,
In a general sense, Peirce did indeed anticipate the possibility of
non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The possibility of new types of order in
far-from-the-equilibrium situations was something Peirce definitely had
in mind. Already in "Design and Chance" he talks about this possibi
Jerry,
[[ Your surmise about my views is utter nonsense. ]]
This does not surprise me, as your surmise about my intentions is
equally nonsense. The difference between your expression and mine is
that my "surmise" was explicitly labeled as such. I also explicitly
labeled my entire message as "g
