On 3/2/2018 8:25 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:> Entirely delightful with a
salutary flourish at the end.
The most salutary suicide I have ever encountered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Ellingwood_Abbot
That provides some good background about F. E. Abbot, and it's
significant that Peirce
John, List,
I think, in each religion there always was a contest, often eruping into fight, between the spiritual and the prophetist fractions. Both have different gods: The god of the spirituals is, like in John´s gospel, understandable for us: Logos. The god of the prophetists/ fundamentalists
Gary f, Jon S, list,
I haven't much more to offer beyond but what Jon has already written, so
I'll keep this brief. Gary f asked:
Q: Are we assuming here that the perfect Sign is an accretion of Signs in a
Quasi-mind?
I would make no such assumption. At the moment all I'm assuming is that the
Hi John. First I added this to my trove on Abbot on Medium.
https://medium.com/everything-comes/f-e-abbots-libel-case-against-josiah-royce-7e8dd3012457
The complete text of Abbott's defense against Josiah Royce for what appears
to have been a rather complete misunderstanding of him on Royce's
Edwina, List:
1. Please read more carefully--I stated that all concepts are Symbols, not
that all Signs are Symbols. Obviously Icons and Indices are also Signs.
2. Peirce explicitly distinguished three kinds of Interpretants, only one
of which is a Sign. "I have already noted that a Sign has
List:
As promised/warned, I have more to say about Peirce's semeiotic and
metaphysics in accordance with his 1904 employment of Aristotelian terms
for the Categories--Form (1ns), Matter (2ns), and Entelechy (3ns). My
understanding--aided by my recent reading of Vincent Colapietro's
book,
Edwina, Jon S, Gary f, list,
ET: I don't see the current focus on singular definitions of terms as a
clarification of Peircean semiosis but instead, as an obscuring of it.
I completely disagree. First, as you wrote, it is a "current focus." Other
foci are possible and, no doubt, desirable. If
Garys, List:
Two quick clarifications.
1. My point about concepts is that they *are *Signs, specifically Symbols,
while Immediate Objects are *parts *or *aspects *of Signs. Hence every
concept *has *an Immediate Object, but no Immediate Object *is *(by itself)
a concept.
2. The Interpretant
*We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the facts
before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human reason"
presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and deliberate, they
come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally admitted that the parties
to
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, Gary R, List - and here is, as I view it, a problem.
1] Notice that JAS seems to be confining the definition [and
function?] of a 'Sign' to a 'symbol', in other words, to Thirdness.
But is this accurate? Or
Stephen, List,
I think, reason is not man-made, and glory is not based on reason. Maybe this is what Peirce wanted to say, or maybe he just was feeling depressed and misanthropic when he wrote it, that is my two best guesses. Best, Helmut
02. März 2018 um 20:29 Uhr
Von: "Stephen C. Rose"
Stephen quoted Peirce:
*We employ twelve good men and true to decide a question, we lay the facts
before them with the greatest care, the "perfection of human reason"
presides over the presentment, they hear, they go out and deliberate, they
come to a unanimous opinion, and it is generally
Sorry. I should have said practical reasoning. It seemed obvious enough. I
shall write context twenty times, :) Here is the entire section with the
proper designation.
* 626. But in practical affairs, in matters of vital importance, it
is very easy to exaggerate the importance of
Edwina, List:
1. My problem with your terms is that you consistently use them in ways
that deviate significantly from what I understand to be Peirce's own
usage. In any case, we both agreed about a year ago to use "Sign" for the
internal triad of Immediate Object, Representamen, and Immediate
Triadic Philosophy gets a good boost from this Wikipedia entry about
someone to whom Peirce refers in CP at a key point and whose side Peirce
took when he did a latterday bout with Royce. Entirely delightful with a
salutary flourish at the end. The most salutary suicide I have ever
encountered.
15 matches
Mail list logo