Stephen,
I like very much the book by Jean Liedloff: The continuum concept. By this book and other books about psychology I have adopted the idea, that bad psychological effects (such as matriarchalic or patriarchalic ideologies) do not occur, if the baby recieves a satisfying primary symbiosis,
I do not see how this discussion concerns anything Peirce-related. If it
cannot be moved in that direction, then perhaps it would be best to take it
off-list.
Best,
Gary (writing as list moderator)
[image: Gary Richmond]
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication
Do I really want to get into trouble? Why not? At 79 I'm not counting the
years.
I think anything here is pertinent and that Peirce-related as a sort of
litmus-test is among the more subjective things that has passed before me
in recent years. I have weathered months of discussion here which has
Words in themselves, as objects, are not semiosic. When words are used within a
relational interaction (with the self, with others) and are thus in a triadic
relation (object- representamen-interpretant) ..then, that word is a Sign, and
is semiosic.
Edwina
- Original Message -
And the tyranny of English grammar? Yes, I see. Best wishes.
Bev
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca wrote:
Words in themselves, as objects, are not semiosic. When words are used
within a relational interaction (with the self, with others) and are thus
in a
Bev - sorry, I don't see that any grammar, including English, exerts any
'tyranny'. It's a basic infrastructure for assisting in defining the role of
the word/sound - whether it should function as a noun, verb, etc etc.
Infrastructure is akin to Peircean Thirdness after all.
Edwina
-
I find myself with a wish that might be also a solution. The best posts
here IMO have been illuminated by excellent and often ignored quotes from
Peirce. I would suggest that this be the common way to proceed -- This is
after all a posthumous author in Nietzsche's sense and much that he said is
Hear, hear. One would think this would go without saying, but apparently not.
From: Benjamin Udell [mailto:bud...@nyc.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 6:37 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] More on applying theory - culture, projection
Bev, well, yes, Sung
I'd agree with Ben; I don't think the list can be reduced to 'any and all
topics'. It's a Peircean list.
Sung, I suggest that your assertions that because we 'think, write and speak in
signs' and that Peircean research was 'devoted to signs'...that your subsequent
conclusion that 'any topics
I very much enjoyed the focus on applied concepts of the discussion and
found it very insightful. I don't see the reference of emptiness so much,
but more universal, perhaps.
Bev
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca wrote:
I'd agree with Ben; I don't think the
Bev - an outline of matriarchy/patriarchy is not, in itself, an 'applied
concept of Peircean semiosis'. You may have found the analysis 'insightful' - I
myself found it invalid but our opinions on 'insightful vs invalid' are not
relevant. What is relevant is: what does it have to do with
Hello Bev, List,
I have been a member of the Peirce list only for the last couple of years.
Here is my understanding of what Ben and Gary R. are trying to do. There are a
set of guidelines that were established by the Peirce-list when Joe Ransdall
set it up. Gary and Ben have responsibility
Bev, Edwina, Gary, Ben, lists,
In the quote provided by Bev, Peirce said:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . For clearly, every assertion
(070215-1)
involves an effort to make the intended interpreter
believe what is asserted, to which end a reason for
believing it must be
Hi Edwina, Therefore, if your words are not a semiosic concept, are they
semioitc?
Bev
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:49 PM, Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca wrote:
Bev - an outline of matriarchy/patriarchy is not, in itself, an 'applied
concept of Peircean semiosis'. You may have found the
Ben, Bev, list,
I agree with Ben. Indeed, this notion of Sung's that 'all' of Peirce's work
is in semiotic, would tend to narrow discussion parameters since it fails
to consider the many other sciences (and other disciplines) Peirce explored
and to which he contributed. Logic as semiotic--and its
Stephen, list,
I'm glad you got that off your chest. You are hardly going to get into
trouble for expressing your opinion here. Indeed, a group of us are
working on preparing a survey of Peirce forum members in consideration of
how we might move forward in the interest of increasing quality
Stephen, List,
I think, Gary is right with demanding, that we either should talk off-list, or turn the topic into the Peirce-direction. It is Peirce-related only in a way like everything is Peirce-related, because Peirce has constructed a model for everything. Trying to turn the topic into the
I enjoy all of the discussions and would prefer more broad than restrictive
frameworks. I consider restricting discussions as more technocratic tactic
/ approach and not Perice related in style.
Bev
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON
Agree about broad and do not think it is forced if the discussion can be
related to such broader matters as realism, triadic thinking, continuity,
fallibility, ethics, aesthetics, reality, signs, semiotics and so forth.
When it veers off is when buttons are pushed. I for example think the use
of
Maybe we could split the topic, and talk about primal nurturer and mammal instincts in the biosemiotics list, and about myths in a Peirce-related way in the Peirce list?
Best, Helmut
Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote:
Agree about broad and do not think it is forced if the
Stephen Jarosek wrote: Surely the topic of projection, for example, is an
important one that would have interested Peirce. How does it relate to
abduction, for example? “Knowing how to be” relates to all the categories,
especially thirdness.
Yes, these would be a interesting ways in which to
Helmut wrote: Maybe we could split the topic, and talk about primal
nurturer and mammal instincts in the biosemiotics list, and about myths in
a Peirce-related way in the Peirce list?
I like this idea very much.
Best,
Gary
[image: Gary Richmond]
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical
Then the proper response is to ask the writer how she or he thinks their
concern is Peirce related. Allowing the writer the leeway to say how. In my
case I would say my mother's family lived in Watertown when Peirce's family
did, that I share his prodigal tendencies, that I anticipate many of his
Gary, I second Stephen’s suggestion. These topics are definitely Peirce
related. Surely the topic of projection, for example, is an important one that
would have interested Peirce. How does it relate to abduction, for example?
“Knowing how to be” relates to all the categories, especially
Bev, Gary, lists,
I agree with Bev, because Peirce's whole career was devoted to the study of
signs and Peirce-related is thus sign-related, it seems to me.
Besides, as I learned it from Peirce, we THINK, WRITE, and SPEAK in SIGNS,
and hence whatever we post on these lists should be regarded as
*Sung, all,
Your post implies that we should emulate Peirce to a T but we can't
emulate Peirce to a T because we aren't Peirce. PEIRCE-L is for
Peirce-related discussion. Peirce himself was not focused on
'Peirce-related' discussion. Instead those who carry on prolonged,
multi-post
*Bev, well, yes, Sung barely emulates Peirce at all, but he wants us to
do so in certain convenient ways.
It really isn't complicated. PEIRCE-L is for discussion of
Peirce-related topics - _/particularly/_ Peirce-related topics, such
that the relation is thematized. If people want a total
27 matches
Mail list logo
