Jean-Marc says:
Of course, not to restart an old debate... I am curious about how the
following lines are going to be interpreted:
We have a direct knowledge of real objects in every experiential
reaction, whether of /Perception/ or of /Exertion/ (the one theoretical,
the other practical). These
J-MO = Jean-Marc Orliaguet
JR = Joe Ransdell
Jean-Marc says:
[J-MO] I don't really understand the subtle distinctions that you are
making
between direct and unmediated and between indirect and mediated,
and in what way they contribute to a better philosophical understanding..
REPLY:
[JR]
Clark says:
With regards to Peirce, I wonder how to consider the analysis of
persuasion that Joseph brings up - especially considering that
Peirce's ideal of science didn't really involve belief. I admit
that's a view of science in Peirce I've long struggled with. But
without belief, what is
Just a quick note to remark that Creath is clearly right about there being a
close relationship between the New Elements and the 1903 Harvard Lectures.
Creath gives some indication of what that is, but I won't attempt to
describe that in more detail myself at the moment since it will take some
Theresa and list:
Theresa, you say:
I agree that Peirce here was implicitly opposing himself to Royce as a
Pragmatist (and a Realist) vs.
a non-Pragmatist. But I disagree with what Joe suggests [And what I am
suggesting is that at least some of what I find most puzzling in what Peirce
is saying
Theresa and list:
You say:
What I do not agree is with your suggestion that Peirce decided
subsequently to accommodate himself to Royce's sensibility as much as
possible (why not the other way round? that Royce, particularly after
Peirce's Lectures of 1898 (the Cambridge Conferences), was
Theresa and list:
I hadn't read your message below when I sent off the self-correction in my
most recent message , but as you can see I agree with your correction of my
mistake there. I referred to the wrong lecture. I don't believe that the
point I was making was mistaken, though, -- but I
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
Ben says:
Yet attributions, ascriptions, copulations, distributions, etc., etc., of
predicates to subjects, or of accidents to substances, or of qualities to
reactions, all have a certain similarity and parallelism. Then when we
associate connotation in one way with firstness, quality,
Good point, Gary. Still another way of thinking about it might be to
suppose that the emphasis is supposed to fall on thing rather than sign:
no sign is a real THING rather than no sign is a REAL thing; but that
doesn't sound very plausible to me. I like your solution better.
Joe Ransdell
Ben:
I will have to leave it to Gary R. and Jim to respond to whatever it is you
are doing here. I just don't follow what is going on, what the problem is
to which what you say is an answer or clarification or whatever.. (That is
not a way of dismissing what you say, but just a personal
Thanks for bringing Soren Brier's
summary statement to our attention, Gary.I put a link to it up at
Arisbe. (Soren was on the PEIRCE-Llist for quite awhile some
years back.) Does anyone know anything about what he calls "the critical
realist" movement? With whom does that originate?
Joe
Steven and Gary R:
Sorry to have overlooked that it was you who initially posted the reference
to Brier,
Steven. Your message had somehow gotten misfiled and overlooked by me and I
didn't realize at first that Gary was responding initially to your prior
post.
Joe Ransdell
- Original
to the forwarded message on information is not enough?
It looks like a must read from the business community...
Bob Chumbley
From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 02/15/2006 08:02 AM
Please respond to Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
This bears on nothing currently under discussion, but I happened upon a note
copying a passage from the Logic Notebook in which Peirce explicitly defines
immediate and direct and thought I should record it here, given how
frequently the question comes up.. Of course it may or may not record
that A is _immediate_ to B means that it is present in B.
_Direct_, as I use it means without the aid of any subsidiary instruments or
operation.
-- MS 339.493; c. 1904-05 Logic Notebook
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion
I have no problem with this, Thomas, as showing the need for the distinction
of the existent vs. the real, but then I wasn't really putting the need for
it in question but only intending to indicate that I don't always understand
how to apply it effectively.
Joe Ransdell
- Original
forbid I should _approve_ of above 1/10 of what I insert.
End excerpt from Nathan Houser's biographical Introducion to Vol. 6 of The
Writings of Charles S. Peirce, posted by Joseph Ransdell.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition
Ben, you say:
I don't pose a tetradic reduction thesis applicable to all relations. I
just say that there's a fourth semiotic term that isn't any of the classic
three.
A sign stands for an object to an interpretant on the basis of a
recognition. I think that an increasingly good reason to
Steven says:
Transparency is a pragmatic. Or, exactly as Joe suggests that Peirce
implies (is there a reference to this Joe?): identifying the author is a
logical necessity.
REPLY:
Here's some quotes to that effect:
CP 2.315 (c. 1902)
For an act of assertion supposes that, a proposition being
-- though I am not sure that he answers the
question as I pose it -- but I can't find anyplace where the corresponding
question about expertise or authority is addressed on the DU website.
Joe Ransdell
Joseph Ransdell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber
[E
TO: Larry Sanger
Larry:
Before explaining to you what I find questionable in the way you are
presently conceiving the task of developing the DU, I want to say first that I
am looking forward to reading with care your dissertation on epistemic
circularity and the problem of
Looks like the sort of conference a Peircean might be specially interested
in;
Forwarded to the list by Joseph Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Stephan Hartmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 1:20 PM
Subject: 2nd CFP: Models and Simulations
Steven:
Thomas is referring to Writings of
CSP, vol. 5. It contains a copy of a letter of Dec 30, 1886, of which
there is a copy (with an image of a page from it), to Allan Marquand in which
Peirce explains to Marquand how the electronic switch (the logic gate) would
work, with a simple
Larry:
Thanks for the extensive reply to my criticisms. Sorry for the delay in
responding but it will take me a few days more before I am ready to do so
properly. I've been reading the various material by you that provides
background understanding in some depth for what you say in your
To avoid the usual Catch-22, just send me a message stating both addresses
and I'll do it for you.
Joseph Ransdell list manager
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
\\
- Original Message -
From: John Rooney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Friday, March 10
If you use Gmail beware of the spam filter. I just discovered that it
misrouted about a dozen peirce-l messages to the spam folder in the last
month, and presumably a bunch more from before that time (which it has
already deleted permanently).. I had not checked it before.
Joe Ransdell
to
much of Joe's extraordinary philosophical analysis over the years and my own
sense of Peirce's semeiotic has been deeply informed by reading Joseph
Ransdell on the topic).But for now, I would simply like to say that
Frances has contributed in "good faith" something of value in this
hrust of Ben's tetrastic project, and that the
sign/representamen distinction might play a significant role in the discussion
of collateral knowledge, the status of the object, etc. that you were indeed
commenting in some way on Ben's theory. I see from your comments that you were
n
s is attributed to Sir W.
Hamilton. This is most interesting. But
can one really equate representation with the representamen? Perhaps. I
don't know. It remains a question in my mindGary Richmond
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Neither Theresa nor I disagree
with what yo
Steven
I agree with you in being unable to find what Frances is saying
intelligible, but I want to take the occasion to ask you what you mean by
immediacy, which seems to have a special meaning in your writings which is
of special importance to you that I don't understand.
Joe Ransdell
Arnold says:
I would venture to suggest (subject to the better sense of those on
the list who have greater experince with the MSS than I have) that the notion of
a Sign contains the concept of a transitive function, making a very strong case
for what Thomas has said on this subject. Other
Gary and list:
I think it was Gary who posted a message some time back -- a couple of weeks
ago? -- that had a quotation in it from Peirce about the definitions in the
Century Dictionary for which he was responsible where he says something to
the effect that he did not necessarily want to
David LaChance says:
Joseph, I can't recall what that message was, but the quote
you are looking might be this one, where Peirce says that his
CD [i.e. Century Dictionary] definitions
“were necessarily rather vaguely expressed, in order to describe the
popular usage of terms, and in some cases
.
--
Joseph Ransdell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 3/17/2006
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
The passages below were retrieved from the Collected Papers of Charles
Sanders Peirce by a string search on real relation: Joe
Ransdell
--
REAL RELATION (passages from the Collected Papers)
CP 5.287 (1868)
287. We must now consider two other properties
I am reposting this under the subject description for the thread on naming
definite individuals so it will show up under that heading in the archives.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent
capability.
As systems get interconnected, maybe the sky's the limit as people figure
out ways for diverse systems to query one another.
Best, Ben
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2006 3:38
Gary, Auke, and Ben:
My initial response was due in part to having first encountered the idea of
knowledge management in contexts in which the knowledge managers were in
fact what I regard as aspiring technocrats, namely, university
administrators who were -- at least in that context -- concerned
Does anybody know anything about category theory in math, which is what the
book in the forwarded message below is about. What is it? Does it actually
have any philosophical interest? Is it relevant to Peirce?
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: G. Sica [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Forwarded by Joseph Ransdell
:
- Original Message -
From: Kelly Booth [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 8:55 PM
Subject: CFP Graduate Conference at SIUC
Joseph,
Could you please post this CFP to the Peirce List? Thanks.
Kelly Booth
Department
Just one point to add to what Gary says, namely, that the word perfection,
as used by Peirce in this context (and wherever the concept of a process is
pertinent) should be understood as implying completion.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: gnusystems [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Ben quotes Peirce as follows:
66~
A symbol, in its reference to its object, has a triple reference:--
1st, Its direct reference to its object, or the real things which it
represents;
2d, Its reference to its ground through its object, or the common characters
of those objects;
3d, Its
CORRECTED VERSION OF PREVIOUS POST :
Ben quotes Peirce as follows:
66~
A symbol, in its reference to its object, has a triple reference:--
1st, Its direct reference to its object, or the real things which it
represents;
2d, Its reference to its ground through its object, or the common
-- a CFP of special relevance to PEIRCE-L; forwarded to the list by Joseph
Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Don Howard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:12 AM
Subject: Fwd: CFP: Science in 19th-Century Britain (8/10/06; collection)
Date
What is the functional difference between using the DIV and the BR tag,
Ben? You say that it makes some sort of difference in email but I don't
understand what you mean.
Joe
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Gary:
Would you mind reposting the diagram you refer to below? I don't recall
what was said about that at that time but I think it important to get clear
on what can and cannot legitimately be imputed to Peirce, and the absence of
availability of the relevant MS material is important to bear
Frances:
In view of what I was just now relating to Ben, I would have to regard the
sort of enterprise you speculate about below as a timewaster of monumental
proportions, promising to generate word salad that startle even the inmates
at Bedlam, given that it would be based on an unreliable
Bernard says::,
Joe and list,
I agree with the idea of being very cautious with the 10 trichotomies
classification. You are right I think in recalling that it was work in
progress for Peirce.
I would be very interested too in reading the material you are refering
to below if you can make it
I pushed every button I could find and nothing happened. .???
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: robert marty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Cc: BENAZET [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:53 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Generator of
] Re: Generator of lattices
You might also try cutting and pasting the link
On 6/15/06 1:52 PM, Dennis Leri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe,
It may depend on your browser. Firefox and Internet Explorer opened it
while Safari didn't.
Dennis Leri
On Thursday, June 15, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Joseph
not pushing any button but just choosing some number
first with the drop down menu. By pointing with your mouse on the arrow at
the right of the number (specify the number of trichotomies). Then choose
ok.
Worked for me :-)
Wilfred
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL
Bernard, Ben, and list:
I am still working on the question of what, if anything, is wrong in my
account of the ten sign classes (as resulting from the cross-combination of
the three basic sign trichotomies) in my paper on Peirce's semiotic in the
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics
Sorry, but I gave you a bad URL. Here is the right one for my paper:
http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/ransdell/eds.htm
Joe Ransdell
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.0/367 - Release Date:
of
teeth!)
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From:
Joseph Ransdell
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 7:54
AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the
ten classes of signs (corrected)
Vinicius, Robert, and list:
I take it that you
That's all for the moment from me. There
arre other MS pages that might throu some light on things but it will take me
some time to browse through the MS material, which is from several different
file folders, to see what is truly worth adding as grist for the present
discussion.
P.S.:And
, Ben
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Ransdell
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 10:25 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: representing the ten classes of signs
(corrected)
That's all for the moment from me. There
arre other MS pages that might
]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Cc: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Benjamin Udell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 11:13 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Please Have Mercy on Pierce-L Digest Subscribers
I realize that most Pierce-L subscribers never see the Pierce-L
Digest
collection.
Kind regards,
Wilfred
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: zaterdag 17 juni 2006 21:33
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Wilfred and the list:
The MS pages reproduced here
David and list:
I have to correct you about the photocopies, David. Any photocopies that
bear the stamped numbers you describe derive from a (paper) photocopy of the
manuscripts which was made independently of the Robin microfilms and any
photocopies derived from \it. This second source of
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Wilfred says::
I think we should ask the Bill Gates foundation for this!
And also just mention the importance of this to be done wherever we
can.
Regarding the bill gates foundation, maybe he should first know then
where
the electronic switch idea originates
Ben and list:
As regards the question of which of the three images of the triangle of
boxes in the manuscript material is the one which was actually relied upon
by the editors of the Collected Papers for the image of it that appears at
CP 2.264, it is reasonably certain that it is the second
Jean-Marc says:
For the record, it must be added that a lot of the information found in
this very exhaustive piece of work has readily been available to
researchers since the 80s and before, including the work done by Robert
Marty on lattices (see the chapter on 'partially ordered sets' for an
J-MO = Jean-Marc Orliaguet
JR = Joseph Ransdell
J-M:
Also note that the various trichotomies are not ordered. It is purely a
convention to call a trichotomy the first, second, or third trichotomy,
etc. So deducing an ordering of the classes from that information only,
as it has been done many
PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 1:20 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Jean-Marc says:
I am surprised that you are claiming that the classes can be traversed
by a unique, natural
Jean-Marc:
What you say below suggests a chaos in Peirce's work and in the scholarship
about it which does not exist, as regards this matter in question. I have
said several times here and once quite recently that all talk about Peirce's
work on the trichotomies past the three presented in
typos. I
meant,"In that case (3,2) would be a (2) concretive (3) legisign and (2,2)
would be a (2) concretive (2) sinsign,..."- Best, Ben
Udell
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Ransdell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" peirce-
of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
Ben:
I don't think you or your position would lose any credibility by
letting Jean-Marc have the last word on the matter.
Joe Ransdell
That's unfair in my opionion. Being accused of not answering, I answer
to Ben with counter-arguments
I agree, Ben. Peirce used capitalization to mark his use of a term as a
technical one, a term of art. It is a common practice of his and I am
certain that there is at least one place where he states this explicitly.
Ill try to track down a verifying passage but it may be difficult to find.
faculty or impotence to represent
it.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 10:18 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: 1st image of triangle of boxes (MS799.2)
I agree, Ben. Peirce
For what it's worth: the reason for my query about Neuroquantology was
receipt of the message below. The unusual range of interests and
accomplishments of the people on PEIRCE-L makes it a good place to raise
questions about possible resources like this, doesn't it? Others should
feel
In case there was any misunderstanding, my recent message about the response
to my question about the neuroquantology journal was not intended to
discourage further response but rather to encourage further such questions
from others as the occasion should arise. It struck me as a use for the
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
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: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1
question on the denouement in Peirce's cosmology. But, you're
right, Joe: I think I'll retreat to Calvino. I never really recovered from
trying to conceptualize the cosmological stew that preceded the sporting
emergence of Firstness.
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Ransdell [mailto:[EMAIL
usual kinds of coherence. Years ago I read a newspaper column doing
this, by Pete Hamill of all people, and it was really pretty funny.
Also don't miss _t zero_ with The Origin of Birds.
Best, Ben
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
I just now mounted a transcription of MS 403 (1893), The Categories, at
Arisbe.
http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/bycsp/ms403/ms403.pdf
This is a rewrite -- up to a point -- of the 1867 paper on the categories,
and I include in the transcription of the later paper a copy of the 1867
This was forwarded to me by Alfredo Horoch, one of the participants in the
conference in Argentina which is described below. It is gratifying to see
how many scholars are involved and how widely they are dispersed throughout
Central and South America now, though I can only guess at the
Arnold, Wilfred, and list:
I just noticed -- and corrected -- a
transcription error that occurs in Section 3 of the 1893 version in the footnote
embedded in that paragraph: I had typed "intention" where it should have
been "attention". That could easily induce a conceptual error. I
also
Ben, list:
Thanks for the response, Ben, and for the news from Gary about the
conference. I hope Stjernfelt's paper is made generally available soon. He
has an important paper in Transactions of the Peirce Society 36 (Summer
2000) called Diagrams as Centerpiece of a Peircean Epistemology..
Ben says:
I thought I was so concise that it was okay to pull the topic in my
favorite direction, since it seemed brief. But I have to make some additions
and corrections.
Ben, I hadn't read your latest message in responding to your earlier message
as I do below, and am not sure whether your
I just now added the transcription of the 1909 definition of a sign in the
Logic Notebook -- pages MS 339.663f -- to the copies of the MS pages
http://members.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/rsources/mspages/ms339d-663f.pdf
It reads better than the version I posted to the list a couple of days ago
Ben:
The complete text from which that passage you were concerned with was taken
is already available on-line in transcribed form at the PEP website (it was
published in Writings 2):
http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/writings/v2/w2/w2_42/v2_42.htm
There is a link to it from Arisbe, too.
Joe
I agree with you on this, Jim. I am wondering if Ben really thinks that
there is any such cognitive acquaintance. I had thought he was simply
misstating whatever point he was trying to make and didn't intend that. I
am looking forward to his answer on that.
Joe
- Original Message
Ben,
I'm wondering if you are acquainted with the paper Fourthness, by Herbert
Schneider in what has come to in the 1952 collection of essays _Studies in
the Philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce_, ed. Wiener Young (Harvard U
Press). It is sometimes referred to retrospectively as the First
of essays _Studies in the Philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce_,
ed. Wiener Young (Harvard U Press)?
Joe
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Ransdell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 6:55 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: MS
Ben Says:
I don't know how Peirce and others have missed
the distinct and irreducible logical role of verification. I keep an eye open
regarding that question, that's about all. I don't have some hidden opinion on
the question. Tom Short argued that there is a problem with answering how it
Ben:
JR: I must say that I think you are missing
mypoint because of some mistaken assumption that I can't identify.
The reason I gave the simple example of a common sense verification was to make
as clear as I could that there is no deep logical point involved. Consider
again my simple
Dear Vinicius:
Good to hear that your dissertation is being
completed in time for you to take advantage of theconference which is
occurring a few daysbefore that so that Nathan and Tom could
bepresent for your defense.For personal reasons, I had to decline Lucia's
invitation to appear at
-- as Peirce would have to claim?
Joe
Joseph Ransdell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
- Original Message -
From: Benjamin Udell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: The composite photograph metaphor
Jacob
W will just have to leave it as a stand off,
Ben. I have no more to say on this than I have already said.
Joe
- Original Message -
From:
Benjamin Udell
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 2:21
AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: The "composite
Ben says:
BU: Jim below says things pretty near to that which I'm saying in
terms of the distinction between object and sign, andit seems that the
"bad regression" stuff that I've said about his previous stuff no longer
applies.
JR: Perhaps it never did.
BU: Object and signs are roles.
Ben:
I was just now rereading your response to Charles,
attending particularly to your citation of Peirce's
concern with verification, and I really don't see in
what you quote from him on this anything more than the
claim that it is the special concern for making sure
that something that
Jim and list::
Sorry to be slow in responding. I just discovered that about half of my email has been going intothe spam folder. It's a new account and the version ofit I am using is a newformat for yahoo and still a bit clunky and erratic.(The new yahoo mail isa lot like Outlook Expressthough it
Jim and list:
This is just a repeat of my previous message,spell-checked and punctuated correctly, with a couple of interpolated clarifications, and minus the unphilosophical paragraphsat the beginning and end: (I will try to state it better in a later message.)
As regards your question: I will
Here is the URL for the on-line journal SEED, which has a lot of papers by Peirceans:
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/pages/SEED_Journal.html
It's edited by Edwina Taborsky. You might want to jot the URL
down now or go there and get a "bookmark" or "favorites" URL for your
browser. Don't
Just now getting arond to addressing your question of several days ago, Jim: you formulate it towards the end of your message as follows:
JP: I don't see how a sign can represent without there being an observor role which is functionally distinct fromthe role of mere participant. So anyway that's
: Friday, September 15, 2006 12:30:06 AMSubject: [peirce-l] Re: SEED journalOn Sep 9, 2006, at 4:30 AM, Joseph Ransdell wrote:Here is the URL for the on-line journal SEED, which has a lot of papers by Peirceans: http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/pages/SEED_Journal.htmlNote
that Seed has a collection
As
regards tthe logical vs. psychological distinction: Jeff Kasser
wrote an important paper on what that distinction meant for
Peirce a few years ago. The title is "Peirce's Supposed
Psychologism". It;s on the ARISBE website:
Dear Kirsti::
I'm short on time today and can't really answer you until
tomorrow, but I ran across a llater passage in Peirce in wihch he
describes what he was doing earlier, in the Fixation article, as
follows. (I'm just quotting it, for what \it's worth , at
the moment and will get back with
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
