Hello Jon S, Gary R., List,
What more might we say about Peirce's account of what "would-be"--where the
focus is on the conceptions of of generality, potentiality and
possibility--when we consider Peirce's suggestion that continuity is relational
generality?
It helps, I think, to consider
Jeff, List:
Thanks for your comments; Gary R. and I are both big fans of "The Logic of
Mathematics, an attempt to develop my categories from within." Although it
is usually dated to c.1896, what you quoted--which, by the way, is CP
1.480, not CP 1.515--already hints at the concept of three
Jeffrey, list: Your post outlines the three 'pure' triads where the Relations
between the Object-Representamen-Interpretant are all of one mode; all in the
mode of Firstness or Secondness or Thirdness. These are only three of the ten -
and the function of the non-genuine or degenerate modes is,
I forgot to include the URL of his web site:
http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jzeman/
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not
Edwina, List:
ET: Your post outlines the three 'pure' triads where the Relations between
the Object-Representamen-Interpretant are all of one mode; all in the mode
of Firstness or Secondness or Thirdness.
I do not believe that Jeff's post was referring to the O-R-I relations
specifically, but
Jon, you wrote:
"For Peirce, the categories do not only function within the O-R-I triad--for
one thing, they are everywhere in his architectonic arrangement of the
sciences!"
PLEASE - do not write as if you alone are the sole interpreter of Peirce.
Therefore, please write something like: '
Jon- I don't think you can move into saying 'If I [Jon] am wrong inthis, then
Peirce was wrong]. We remain, all of us, readers of Peirce - and thus -
interpreters. We each read him a different way and I don't think that you have
the right to self-define yourself as someone who is
1) Jon - When you say that some of Peirce's positions are perfectly clear and
not reasonably disputable - again, this is your opinion. I happen to disagree
with your view of Peirce's view on 'god- as 'creator of the three universes.
You have your opinion - and again, I think it is incorrect for
On 10/13/2016 5:24 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
[Peirce's pragmatic axiom] once accepted, – intelligently accepted,
in the light of the evidence of its truth, – speedily sweeps all
metaphysical rubbish out of one’s house. Each abstraction is either
pronounced to be gibberish or is provided with a
Dear list:
Consider the pragmatic maxim:
*Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we
conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of
these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.*
*If*
*This maxim once accepted, –
Edwina, List:
ET: We each read him a different way and I don't think that you have the
right to self-define yourself as someone who is 'one-with-Peirce'.
Those are your words, not mine; I have *never *claimed to be "one with
Peirce." What I *have *claimed is that *some *of Peirce's positions
Dear John, list:
Thank you for your statement but I'm not sure to what you are objecting.
Is it that the pragmatic maxim does not achieve the stated goal: "Each
abstraction is either pronounced to be gibberish or is provided with a
plain, practical definition."
...or that *this* pragmatic maxim
Hello John,
Over the years, I have found Jay Zeman's website to be remarkably helpful--both
for thinking about Peirce's philosophical ideas generally, and also for
understanding the existential graphs in particular. Given the value that it
might have for future generations of students, is
Gary Richmond and I will be looking into preserving it. Meanwhile I
visited both http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jzeman/ and
http://www.existentialgraphs.com/ and made sure that every page that i
could find would be saved by the Wayback Machine if it was not already
saved there. The majority turned
Edwina, List:
ET: When you say that *some *of Peirce's positions are perfectly clear and
not reasonably disputable - again, this is your opinion.
Are you claiming here that *none* of Peirce's positions are perfectly clear
and not reasonably disputable--i.e., that *all* of his positions are at
Dear list:
*“The starting-point of the universe, God the Creator, is the Absolute
First; the terminus of the universe, God completely revealed, is the
Absolute Second; every state of the universe at a measurable point of time
is the third.*
*First and Second**, Agent and Patient, Yes and No,
No Jon, I am not claiming a thing about Peirce's writings and don't try to
introduce a red herring.
I'm pointing out that your insistence that YOUR interpretations of Peirce are
THE correct ones is an untenable position.
I've already explained my disagreement with your view that, for example,
Gary F., List:
Thank you for those references. I was thinking about conducting a search
myself, and you have saved me the trouble, although I may still do some
digging through CP. I will take a look as soon as I can, although I am
traveling tonight and tomorrow and do not have my hard copy of
18 matches
Mail list logo
