Dear Jim, list,
One thing is that I wouldn't underrate the importance of the conception of
resistance/reaction -- I wouldn't replace it with location. Location has a lot
to do with resistance and reaction! Space, shortest distances, straight lines,
least action, fields, -- there's quite a set o
Title: [peirce-l] Re: Entelechy
Gary --
Are you familiar with the work of Floyd Merrell? Your
characterization of your own work brings his to mind. To quote from a
review of three of Merrell's books by Robert E.
Innis (review available in the archives
of the Semiotic Review of Books at
http://ww
Gary F, Jim, list,
Thank you for having plowed through my posts! I'm gratified to read that they
make sense to you. I don't actually mind being tuckered out by my own posts,
but I know that people have more things to do than read my posts.
Gary wrote,
> This seems tantalizingly close to a con
PLEASE DON'T OPEN ANYTHING ATTACHED TO THIS E-MAIL. I'LL STAY OFF THE
LISTSERVE UNTIL I CAN TRACK DOWN A POSSIBLE VIRUS IN THE SYSTEMS I WORK WITH.
NEAL
-Original Message-
From: Benjamin Udell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 5/8/2006 4:54 PM
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Cc:
Jerry,
Your thumbnail sketch of chemical logic seems clear to me, and my memories from
long-ago high-school chemistry fit with it.
The striking thing to a gawker like me who knows very little about chemistry is
those symbols, and it's encouraging to one's intuition to be reassured that
chemist
Kirsti,
There wasn't an attachment--what you must have seen is how one of my browsers
(Safari or Firefox, whichever I used) represents a reply to a previous e-mail.
Sorry.
NB
-Original Message-
From: Kirsti Määttänen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 5/8/2006 1:51 PM
To: Pe
Kirsti, it's good that you couldn't open the attachment -- according to
my software it contained a virus (the worm Mydoom.O). Neal doesn't
mention it in the message itself, so i'd bet he didn't even know it was
attached when he sent it.
Neal, better check your system --
gary
- Ori
Neal,
I didn't succeed in opening your attachment. Could you possibly copy it
and send it as a mail?
Kirsti
7.5.2006 kello 23:09, Neal Bruss kirjoitti:
. . . and notice how the first two clauses of the passage link
"entelechy" with the Peirce's freuqent turn to grammar in his logic,
and,
Ben, Jim, &c.,
[[ Signs are built into complex signs and it wouldn't be helpful to have
a level of internal structure where semiotics must dispense with its
usual conceptions in order to reach. ]]
Having thought it through further, i think what you say here makes more
sense than what i said ea
List, I think the best definition of Entelechy given by Peirce, done in terms of Semeiosis, can be found in his definition of "Perfect Sign" (EP2: 545, n.25). Best, ViniciusKirsti M¨¨tt¨nen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Gary, Wilfred et al.Gary wrote:> I'm still trying to get a firmer grip on t
Gary, Wilfred et al.
Gary wrote:
I'm still trying to get a firmer grip on the concept of "entelechy"
myself, but the best definition i can offer at the moment is "the end
product of a completed process."
Yes, that's a good definition. Keeping in mind Peircean idea of meaning as something having
Janet,
[[ Is entelechy the same as final cause to Aristotle or are they just
related concepts? ]]
My understanding is that the entelechy is an entity, while the final
cause is not. If we could map a process onto a sentence, the entelechy
would correspond to a noun while the final cause would b
12 matches
Mail list logo
