On Jan 25, 2006, at 1:59 AM, Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen wrote:
It is not clear to me however why
this would not belong to the linguistic turn in philosophy. Is
linguistic
turn not "just" some terminology to describe emphasis on language by
philosophers like, among others, thoughts belonging to sem
Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
> Yes, but the question is not whether one "understands
what is being
> seen". This is another issue. Interpretation of what is
seen is a
> different process.
Interpretation wasn't the issue; it was the extent of the
requisite mediation.
Bill Bailey wrote:
J-M
Well actually I regard Derrida as excellent exactly because he is focusing
almost solely on language and ideas/mind. It is not clear to me however why
this would not belong to the linguistic turn in philosophy. Is linguistic
turn not "just" some terminology to describe emphasis on language by
philo
Also, while it is clear that no sign actually functions as such in the
absence of interpretation, the question of whether an *interpreter* is
required may be the kind of metaphysical question that Peirce declines to
enter into in this essay (EP2, 314).
gary F.
well the above sentence
Just some question. Can anybody maybe send me the Peirce notions of mediacy
and immediacy and direct versus indirect the texts I mean. Or where I can
find them. I searched in the dictionary but get some files I can not open.
If anyone can send them offlist to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] I would appreci
Bill Bailey wrote:
J-Mo: > interesting notion in this context. Adding glasses or
telescopes between
> the perceiver and the object perceived does not make the act of
> perception more or less direct in its nature.
Well, I guess it becomes a question of degree at some point. The
telescope or
On Jan 24, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
On Jan 24, 2006, at 5:58 AM, Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen wrote:
Together with Umberto Eco,
Jacques Derrida and other philosophers interested in the linguistic
turns of
philosophy a true master of this art. And a passage in Peirce
talking about
rela
Title: [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS (KAINA STOICHEIA)
available at
Jean-Marc, Bill, Clark, Joe, and List,
In the second of the 1903 Harvard Lectures Peirce writes:
"Kant, Reid, and others talk of the immediate
perception of externality. As a matter of words, merely, I think it is
better to spea
to heteronym.
(I should have spent this time looking at the definitions of mediate,
immediate, direct, indirect. I simply have to quit for the night!)
Best, Ben
- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Ransdell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discu
: I want to follow up on some of the things you are saying in
your recent post about the distinction-sets, Ben, but it will be tomorrow
before I can get to that.
Joe Ransdell
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Bailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum
J-Mo: > interesting notion in this context. Adding glasses
or telescopes between
> the perceiver and the object perceived does not make the
act of
> perception more or less direct in its nature.
Well, I guess it becomes a question of degree at some point.
The telescope or microscope might or
Bill Bailey wrote:
JR, J-MO, List: All information occurs in a medium of some kind, so
immediacy must ultimately be understood more as theoretical than
actual. The radiant energy of light striking our eyes is not what the
optical nerve carries to the brain, but rather electro-chemical
analo
I want to add to Clark's my thanks to Ben for doing a terrific job
with the blog space peircematters which is, due to his
efforts, easy to navigate & looking very good, I'd encourage all
listers who haven't already done so to take at least a glance at
http://peircematters.blogspot.com/
Gary
On Jan 24, 2006, at 12:49 PM, Bill Bailey wrote:
All information occurs in a medium of some kind, so immediacy must
ultimately be understood more as theoretical than actual.
There is also the issue of Peirce's notion of continuity.
I wonder (merely throwing ideas out) if one ought perhaps c
On Jan 24, 2006, at 9:17 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Mark, Joe, Clark, list,
First, a general note to the list. I've finally put the Century
Dictionary definitions of words like "empirical," "experience," and
"pragmatic" at http://peircematters.blogspot.com . I've finally
found no way to m
On Jan 24, 2006, at 5:58 AM, Drs.W.T.M. Berendsen wrote:
Together with Umberto Eco,
Jacques Derrida and other philosophers interested in the linguistic
turns of
philosophy a true master of this art. And a passage in Peirce
talking about
relation between metaphysics, logic and arts like rhet
Let me correct something: for "perceptual experience"
substitute "immediate sensory data."
Bill Bailey wrote:
JR, J-MO, List: All information occurs in a medium of some kind, so
immediacy must ultimately be understood more as theoretical than
actual. The radiant energy of light striking our
JR, J-MO, List: All information occurs in a medium of some
kind, so immediacy must ultimately be understood more as
theoretical than actual. The radiant energy of light
striking our eyes is not what the optical nerve carries to
the brain, but rather electro-chemical analogues of it. It
does
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
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
d as a sign by a mind, but a directly experienced
thing? The sign is the thing which directly presents itself as representing
something else, the sign's object. If no experienced things _could_ do that,
then semiosis could never take actual form. This doesn't affect the fact that
when we look
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:
[
Joe, you suggested that
[[ Peirce thinks of the persuasional factor as omnipresent in the inquiry
process, beginning from the persuasion the object of perception exerts upon
the experimenting or observing inquirer in his or her interaction with the
object, which is then transmitted as a convict
worthwhile
he was excellent. Also with dog cookies.
Kind regards,
Wilfred
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: csthorne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: maandag 23 januari 2006 3:48
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS (KAINA STOICHEIA) available at Arisbe
I am
Clark Goble wrote:
On Jan 23, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Such a sentence as "whether or not direct knowledge is to be
construed as unmediated" is disturbingly convoluted, especially as
Peirce does not seem to introduce such distinctions himself.
Sometimes he uses in a s
On Jan 23, 2006, at 4:57 PM, Jean-Marc Orliaguet wrote:
Such a sentence as "whether or not direct knowledge is to be
construed as unmediated" is disturbingly convoluted, especially as
Peirce does not seem to introduce such distinctions himself.
Sometimes he uses in a same sentence "direct"
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
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,
t
In response to my remark that:
[[ Overall, I find the rationale of it baffling. It is not a complete paper
of course, but even considered as only an intended preface to a book on the
logic of mathematics, it is seems puzzlingly incomplete, at the least. Why
does he start off with the theory vs.
re signs can
not operate, even not exist, without living beings. To create them, alter
them and for the interpretation of them.
Kind regards,
Wilfred
_
Van: Jim Piat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: maandag 23 januari 2006 0:49
Aan: Peirce Discussion Forum
Onderwer
create them, alter them and for the
interpretation of them.
Kind regards,
Wilfred
Van: Jim Piat [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: maandag 23 januari 2006
0:49
Aan: Peirce
Discussion Forum
Onderwerp: [peirce-l] Re: NEW
ELEMENTS (KAINA STOICHEIA) available at Arisbe
Dear
Joe writes (about New Elements):
[[ Overall, I find the rationale of it baffling. It is not a complete
paper
of course, but even considered as only an intended preface to a book on
the
logic of mathematics, it is seems puzzlingly incomplete, at the least.
Why
does he start off with the the
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 are direct
ssues he raises. And I'd be interested too!
Thanks for the further comments. I am looking
forward to the Kaina discussion.
Jim Piat
- Original Message -
From:
Gary
Richmond
To: Peirce Discussion Forum
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:58
PM
Subject: [peirce
Joe writes (about New Elements):
[[ Overall, I find the rationale of it baffling. It is not a complete paper
of course, but even considered as only an intended preface to a book on the
logic of mathematics, it is seems puzzlingly incomplete, at the least. Why
does he start off with the theory
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
Jim, list,
I've moved my comments from the Research & Learning vs Teaching to
this thread since most of the text I've quoted below is
from the New Elements. Responding to a Peirce snippet I copied, viz.
In order to convince ourselves that all
learning is virtually reasoning, we have only to r
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I finally got a transcription of the New Elements manuscript of 1904 up at
Arisbe. I thought we might try figuring out what is going on there. If you
have a copy of Volume 2 of the Essential Peirce you already have a copy of
it, but it is helpful to have it in digitize
Anyway, I would like to get clear on what is going on it in detail, step
by
step, and will begin by making some comments on it later today, after
those
of you who are interested in this have a chance to download a working copy
of it from Arisbe.
Joe Ransdell
Dear Joe,
Looking forward to y
37 matches
Mail list logo
