Jorge, We haven't understood the purpose of your post to Claudio. Would you be able to clarify it?. VTY, AlaseJorge Lurac [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Claudio, List, Just a small bibliographic collaboration. Cheers, J. LuracClaudio Guerri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jorg
Interesting remarks, including but not limited to those by Peirce.
>Maybe I should add that I find it difficult to believe that anyone has
>actually been able to read all of the way through Calvino's practical joke of
>a book!
It's also difficult to believe that anyone eats all the way through
Michael said:
[MD:] Haven't had the pleasure of Calvino's "Cosmicomics," [but] I like the
antidotal sound of it [cure for hyper-seriousness]. The
asymptotic/singularities of beginnings and endings in continuous processes
challenge all systems that allow for them, and do make for pretzelian
th
tion is true. I > wanted to make sure I had an
understanding of real, true and actual that > allowed for all sorts of
conceptions including lies, illusions, > contradictory statements, and
mere potential states of affairs. I think the > above does it but
would welcome errors being pointed
Haven't had the pleasure of Calvino's "Cosmicomics," by I like the antidotal
sound of it [cure for hyper-seriousness]. The asymptotic/singularities of
beginnings and endings in continuous processes challenge all systems that
allow for them, and do make for pretzelian thought-processes. But I note
So it would seem, according to Peirce -- at first. But upon reflection,
what could that possibly mean? Since it is supposed to be something that
comes about only asymptotically, which is to say, not at all, it doesn't
seem to make much difference one way or the other, does it? Then, too,
ther
It is found in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear":
The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who
investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in
this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality. CP
5.407
Joe Ransdell
Dear Folks,
T
May be way out of school here, but what is the ultimate fate of "opinion,"
representation: ultimate merger with what is represented? Isn't all mind
evolving toward matter, all sporting ultimately destined to end?
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Th
It is found in "How to Make Our Ideas Clear":
The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who
investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in
this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality. CP 5.407
Joe Ransdell
- Original Mes
Claudio, Patrick, list,
"That object for which truth stands" doesn't sound fully like Peirce. But
Peirce did say that truth is of a predicate, proposition, assertion, etc. ; a
true predicate corresponds to its object. Inquiry seeks to arrive at true signs
about the real.
66~~~ ('A Sketch of Lo
Patrick, List,
Patrick wrote the 28 June:
"I like to start out from Peirce's definition of the real as "that object
for which truth stands""
I could not find this definition in the CP... could you tell from where you
got it?
I found this one, closely related:
CP 1.339 [...] Finally, the inter
Patrick, Jean-Marc, Jerry, Jim, Bill, List
J.Ch = Jerry Chandler
BB = Bill Bailey
J-MO = Jean-Marc Orliaguet
AS = Arnold Shepperson
The following remarks caught my eye as I read through the exchanges on this thread:
J-MO: ... the phenomenological approach which consists in studying how forms can b
12 matches
Mail list logo
