Jon A.S.,
That “sketch” is an interesting text that I don’t think I’ve read before; Robin
dates it c.1903 and it’s obviously connected with “New Elements” (EP2:300,
http://gnusystems.ca/KainaStoicheia.htm), which probably followed shortly after
the Lowell lectures.
You wrote, “This
Gary F., List:
GF: So the three Universes in the “Neglected Argument” are collections of
“things” in each of which Firstness, or Secondness, or Thirdness is
predominant.
I go back and forth on whether the Universes are intended to be
phenomenological or metaphysical. Calling them "Universes
On 12/2/2017 2:20 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Re: Peirce List Discussion • John Sowa
JFS:
In 1911, Peirce clarified [the] issues by using two distinct terms:
‘the universe’ and ‘a sheet of paper’. The sheet is no longer
identified with the universe, and there is no reason why one
List,
is it so, that categories are the er...,well, categories? everything (real and existing, possible and impossible, phenomena and metaphysical ideas) is due to, so both elements and universes are not synonyms for, but things to be classified by categories. Whatever is meant by universes ,
John,
I thought it was clear I was simply echoing and elaborating on your statement
that drew a distinction between the two, the universe of discourse itself and
the sheet paper that represents it.
An earlier version referred to your post only by link, which would be my normal
practice, but
Mike, List:
Thanks for the link. Unfortunately--and somewhat surprisingly--Ika does
not say anything about the Universes. The closest is the statement on page
61, "The concern of the phenomenologist is entirely with phenomena as such,
regardless of whether they correspond to any real object in
Hi Jon, List:
I go back and forth on whether the Universes are intended
to be phenomenological or metaphysical. Calling them
"Universes of Experience" certainly suggests phenomenology,
but Peirce's descriptions of their
Peircers,
Still cleaning up leftovers from last month ...
I spent some time trying to write a clearer version of that
last post on being vs. representing a universe of discourse.
Here's a link to my blog rewrite:
Peirce's 1903 Lowell Lectures • Comment 9
