Re: [biosemiotics:5391] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 3. Phenomenology and the Categories

I am going to be interested in a non mathematical presentation of how triadic works. *@stephencrose * On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Sungchul Ji wrote: > Hi, > > Minor typos were found in the previous post and corrected thus: > > (1) c was missing in Figure

Re: [biosemiotics:5391] Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 3. Phenomenology and the Categories

," that *that* would be the focus. So I think you have a > point here, Stephen. > > Best, > > Gary R. > > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > On Tue

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 3. Phenomenology and the Categories

> > Steve, > > Given that the overwhelming majority of presentations of "how triadic > works" we've seen here and elsewhere have been sans math, I wonder why you > remain ungesättigt. For my part, I'll try switching gears later but right > now my lit

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 3. Phenomenology and the Categories

nd them in things True Kepler prowess are a great example of this > > assertion. Knowledge can not emerge only from experience, but comparison > > of the inventions of the intellect with the observed facts. " > > > > > > > > Paul > > > > > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 4, The Normative Science of Logic

The last two lines of Keats Ode to a Grecian Urn claim for the aesthetic the mantle of beauty and truth as inseparable, that is one is the other.I think this gives the aesthetic a special place. But there is a good deal of confusion about how to place it. The Bard assists us with his remark about t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] ECO ON PEIRCE

Excellent. The Preview is VERY generous. Amazon.com: From the Tree to the Labyrinth: Historical Studies on the Sign and Interpretation (9780674049185): Umberto Eco, Anthony Oldcorn: Books http://buff.ly/1oU0fIi *@stephencrose * On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 9:08 AM,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] ECO ON PEIRCE pt. 5

The general import of the priestly and historical texts of Israel is to blame the human condition on reality and claim that reality has chosen one nation as a megaphone. Both assertions were to a degree false. Jesus exposed the falsehood and parsed the underlying truth that was/is in line both with

Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapter 7, "framework" vs "foundational"?

Then how about accompaniment. Or accompany, the verb. *@stephencrose * On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Deely, John N. wrote: > Perhaps "framework" rather than "foundational", as foundational lies > behind, as it were, whereas semosis accompanies every step a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] de Waal Seminar: Chapters 7 & 8

I think it is much too early in the course of things to exclude Michael's conjectures which I assume are intended to widen in a radical and original manner the scope of Peirce's influence. It has after all taken 2000 years to arrive at the start of an appropriate revision of Aristotle, again based

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Perfect Sign Revisited

The notion of aesthetics as a significant conclusion to ethical reflection, assuming we are talking about finite decisions that will inevitably have some fallibility, is to me revolutionary. Why? Ask yourself how far we have gotten assuming that power alone can bring about good. It was the Bush (W)

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Any talk of signs would benefit from the use of examples. Otherwise, you are constructing hypotheticals with no possibility of arriving at an expressive or actionable result. There's a big world out there. Semiosis has to do with all, everything, as I understand it. amazon.com/author/stephenrose

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

If semiosis is real, a general, true regardless what one thinks or does not think, how can any theory of it be more than an inadequate effort to make sense of the reality it embodies. This is one reason that examples are relevant. If my sign is today's news i can proceed to tell you how I might par

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

This goes far toward substantiating a general observation about discussion or communication in a forum such as this. To be Peircean should not be seen as having the right slant on what he means as having a general relationship to a zeitgeist that is not that difficult to define. It exists on severa

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

What is all experience if not the experience of semiosis (encounter with signs) and how can these be "studied" (semiotics) without words of some other interpretive means? As I parse things, reality (which I insist is all) communicates with us via signs. We, as part of reality, refine signs into wo

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

Bogus is a strong term. I think Edwina is suggesting that we observe the pragmatic maxim. What is the practical effect or substance of a consideration? What is the whole of the matter? What is the end of this particular effort to parse a particular sign? Triadic philosophy asks how what we are co

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/degenerate-secondness, > 24.03.2018. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jerry LR Chandler > *Sent:* 23-Mar-18 20:19 > *To:* Stephen C. Rose ; Peirce List < > Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interp

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

I don't post that often. I study as best I can and when I react it is mainly to Peirce himself. I do not lack interest in Peirce or boast about such. I do not express or feel contempt for anyone. I certainly do not see “triadic philosophy” as meriting more interest, care or attention than Peirce. I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

I do not regard tolerance, helpfulness, democracy, freedom. love and justice as matters of "sentiment" any more than I regard Wittgensteins notion of such talk as unspeakable or nonsensical. I was drawn to Peirce precisely because he opened for me a way of seeing that looking at matters as sentimen

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Three Interpretants

> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Stephen C. Rose > wrote: > >> I do not regard tolerance, hel

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuine triadic relations

Sounds interesting -- a far piece from NYC but I am hoping you will summarize the argument. It seems to me that one can represent a relationship as triadic without if one can represent a relationship as binary. Icon-index-symbol works as a model for the consideration of a sign. I will be interested

[PEIRCE-L] Semiotics followup

Semiotics is the only inherently interdisciplinary perspective there is...John Deely PS I think the current discussions have exhibited what might be called a series of dissonant meta-languages. Deely is absolutely right that Semiotics and therefore Peirce should be communicated to the whole world

Re: [PEIRCE-L] "What is the main challenge for contemporary semiotics?"

urce=post> - Life <https://medium.com/tag/life?source=post> One clap, two clap, three clap, forty? By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out. - [image: Go to the profile of Stephen C. Rose] <https://medium.com/@stephencrose?source=footer_card> Stephen

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Perplexing

I agree as well. As important may be observations of Deely and others who have already taken large steps in liberating Peirce's thought. I think there is some urgency in establishing a triadic perspective about which there should be little debate. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Apr 7, 201

Re: [PEIRCE-L] General Agreement

It would be interesting to see what seems to me a convincing response applied to the most ordinary of situations -- something all could relate to. That's not a challenge but a genuine concern. If Semiotics (and Peirce for that matter) is to have the currency that I believe is warranted, we are goin

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

Words, as noted, are often a frail reed but they have a purpose. If logic it actually universal its universality is not served by locking its meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is achieved fallibly by the use of words to form hypotheses and then by scientific parsing o

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

/14/2018 12:57 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > >> If logic is actually universal its universality is not served by locking >> its meanings in mathematical symbols and abbreviations. Universality is >> achieved fallibly by the use of words to form hypotheses and then by >> scie

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

ics a central term in a triadic approach to thinking. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sun, Apr 15, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > John F, Steven,List > > On Apr 14, 2018, at 3:19 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 4/14/2018 12:57 PM, Ste

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

To speak of good as prior to logic is perhaps wrong. I claim logic is good. Good is only prior to logic in the sense that it represents what metaphysics used to see as the end of things. I see dualisms as eliminated by triadic thought. So, for example, metaphysics and logic coexist triadically. Der

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

; > On Apr 14, 2018, at 11:57 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > Words, as noted, are often a frail reed but they have a purpose. > > > This is a very clever phrase; I like it very much. > > Do you think that all of academic philosophy (not just the ones that post > here) uses

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on existential graphs and related systems

John, my reply to Jerry sort of thoughts on the idea of two logics. Unfortunately, I replied first to Jerry and managed to lose your note to which I was going to reply. I have been online forever but have no idea what happened. Here is a bit that may explain what I am about. Reality is all. All

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Articles on the semiotic of music

Songwriting is a way of understanding texts. I spent more than a decade proving this out and published more than 150 examples of Biblical passages turned into songs. This process was a source of Triadic Philosophy, I inferred the values that emerged among the teenagers who learned these songs and s

[PEIRCE-L] Roses are red

I find this uplifting. Peirce: CP 8.194 Cross-Ref:†† “A questioner to whom pragmaticism comes as a novelty will naturally ask, "Do you mean to say that you do not believe there has been any past?" To which the pragmaticist will reply, -- and note well his answer, because it is analogous to the a

[PEIRCE-L] The Stillest Hour Three #abbasway

Religion is a partial artifact Philosophy is academy bound Truth and beauty must be found outside Dancing to a universal sound Monism – one – will do for unity Dualism does for writing code Triadic is tuned to reality A silent good its method and its mode May 10, 2018 ---

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] The failure of Intelligent Design

There is no necessity to use traditional metaphysical language to substantiate what Jon has suggested. Stephen asks interesting questions. I submit that we render to Mystery the inference that there is a reason for all that is and that we are not wrong to assume that intelligence is involved. In ot

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design

I agree that Peirce though influenced by religious experience would probably refrain from a detailed argument. He says more than once I think that there should be a synthesis of what has been called metaphysics with science as he understands it. Peirce's influence on theology has not been great as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and theism

Fox certainly gives us some clues. He approved of divorce -- he left Unitarianism on that basis. He held there is no need to see faith as alien to metaphysics. Interesting that Peirce chose him to mention. S amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:10 PM, wrote: > Gary R, list, >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and theism

I meant alien to science. Sorry. And agree Jerry. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:20 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > Fox certainly gives us some clues. He approved of divorce -- he left > Unitarianism on that basis. He held there is no need to see faith as alie

Re: : [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design

Reality is real and the real ultimately is reality and we know it only in part as Paul inferred but perhaps then face to face. The amount of ink explaining this sans understanding is prodigious. Peirce got religion in a Manhattan Episcopal Church a few blocks from where I sit. He also wandered in

Re: : [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design

You forgot Persephone. :) amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 2:38 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > On 5/13/2018 10:16 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > >> Hey, John - you forgot: Happy Mother's Day. >> >> [mutter, mutter, seethe, fume...if my kids ever did that..mutter, mutter]. >> > > G

Re: : [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design

goodbye And to this day it could be I was mistaken Never knowing if she said her yes or whether it was I. Appropriate for (estranged) Mothers Day. Best, S amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 5:27 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > On 5/13/2018 2:48 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > >>

Re: : [PEIRCE-L] The failure of Intelligent Design

Edwina's point is highly relevant. There is a major distinction between theist as a designation -- it implies essential orthodoxy and the acknowledgment of not only someone supreme but someone who is actively in charge. The notion of mystery (vagueness) or of a sort of coterminous and integrated Mi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce’s insufficient religious conservatism (was Reconciling science and religion...)

I demur from any attempt to locate Peirce by the various efforts I have seen stated here. I must assume he was not joking when he chose the word agape to modify his philosophy and suggest its direction. Maybe he qualified it. Maybe I have missed mention of it in this discussion. His emphasis on mem

[PEIRCE-L] Skepticism regarding "alien" life in the cosmos

The discussion that has touched Peirce's "anthropomorphism" is interesting in light of Ray Kurzweil's noting the unlikelihood of other human-type life in the universe. https://youtu.be/cBVUdEQXvmc amazon.com/author/stephenrose - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply Li

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Skepticism regarding

ement for social networking and our use of > symbolic language - then, beliefs are necessary for social stability and > even, our individual psychological health. Again, this does not make our > beliefs 'real'; it makes them socially valid - and, as such, open to change > when the soci

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Skepticism regarding

the group also Thank you. S amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:09 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > On 5/17/2018 9:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > >> My point is simply that reality has all sorts of permutations and that to >> disclude things is to complexify. >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Skepticism regarding

ively speaking) is not an insurmountable challenge. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:19 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > A wonderful illumination of an unknown (to me) nook. I thought of O.R. > when I was writing but did not have the knowledge whereof I spoke. But I am

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Reality and Theism (was Skepticism regarding)

gt;> approach to certainty concerning the real that we can have >> [ibid] Therefore, my point is that claims based around only deduction >> remain beliefs - held by tenacity or authority - but still, only beliefs. >> >> But are our beliefs only valid - and I mean vali

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Skepticism regarding "alien" life in the cosmos

Has he conversed with anyone on this list or known to anyone here? amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > Yes. Abduction and retroduction through wormholes. Peirce has been > abducted too, is still alive (telomers reconstruction), and has develope

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

I thought signs were first simply because they are there before we begin any process. How then can anything be required of them? If they have a life it is the life we give them by virtue of faculties we might call utilities of thought. I am not sure if signs determine anything other than what we de

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: AI

There are all sorts of theories and I think those to do with empathy can rest alongside studies that show, as one from Harvard recently did, hat affluent millennials would be receptive to a police state. I am with Wittgenstein on theories (not for them) and with Peirce in dismissing the blanket dou

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

Isn't the point of considering anything the end? And isn't the end a practical actionable something (expression, act) that contains the initial sign and the index. In which case the sign would already have been predefined by the logical end, though requiring the cogitative process to get there. Isn

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

ote: > On 8/12/2017 10:43 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > >> Isn't the point of considering anything the end? And isn't the end >> a practical actionable something (expression, act) that contains >> the initial sign and the index. >> > > Peirce said that t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's classification of the sciences

This makes perfect sense in relation to Peirce but I do not think it fulfills what Peirce might have conceded is a more useful and pragmaticist effort to create the world in which triadic thinking would not be an academic cul de sac but rather a theater of understanding based on his musings and spi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Deduction, induction, abduction, categories

All through this, it seems to me that no form of logic can be tied to one or two or three. If all thought is signs getting into specifying where they are is impossible since they are everywhere.I see Peirce as an ethicist and aesthetician who never got to the logical conclusion of how the pragmatic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.3

I have evolved a sense of things into a daily discipline which contains a meditative-prayer element and what I call a colloquy. I have described this in one or another of my writings. Essentially for me, it is important to raise the concerns of the Lord's Prayer daily and to submit whatever I want

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.3

Very interesting and filled with implications. For example, if he makes normative sciences a hierarchy in which aesthetics at the top that is no different to me than having a triad which leads to action understood to be Aesthetics informed by Ethics and stimulated by Reality which is the sign. The

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.4

I've not seen a clearer set of signals from Peirce that we do experience some satisfaction when we engage in a process of thought that results in expressions and actions of a practical sort. Though he does not speak of logic in this passage can there be any doubt that the reason he celebrates reas

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.4

Everything does move past the individual to social or community or whatever name we give the living. Because triadic thinking inevitably moves to expression and action there is no way the social element cannot be present in some form. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 4:40 PM,

Re: RE: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.4

d or bad, and the > validity of the judgment depends (ideally at least) on the real nature of > reasoning itself, and not on the feelings or beliefs of any individual or > community. This would be analogous to an argument for universal ethical > standards (though it's not y

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.4

freedom of the individual to doubt, to question, to > explore this objective reality and figure out new methods of interaction > with the envt, new methods of production, new tools and technology. In that > sense, the community has to allow deviations from the norm, has to allow > &#x

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.4

; have the luxury of accommodating people who cannot carry their own weight. >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> >>>> On Oct 1, 2017, at 1:45 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: >>>> >>>> John, list >>>> >>>> That's an interes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.5

This makes you wonder why Peirce is not understood to be a moral philosopher as much as a partisan of the scientific method. I doubt that he would see the two things as distinct. Everything thus far in this discussion seems to point toward Peirce as the champion of a philosophy of progress based on

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.6

er three times > and still fail to see *any* connection between any part of what you’ve > said and what Peirce says in 1.6. I know you don’t like explaining what you > say, but if you don’t try in this case, I’m afraid I can make no sense of > it at all! > > > > gary &g

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.6

list) for an explanation, I’ll > refrain from doing that in the future. So I’ve learned a moral lesson, > though I haven’t learned anything about Peirce from this exchange. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 4-Oct-1

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1.7

It's Keats who got it right. Beauty is truth, truth beauty. Now imperfectly then perfectly. It is the only bnary that is ultimately collapsed. Peirce saw that the end of consideration is the aesthetic which means he understood that the ethical cannot be the final word. Ethics are the way to the goo

Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1: overview

For what its worth, I see Reality as embracing all, everything, by any name or with no name, known or unknown. I see existence as a reference to beings with consciousness. The distinction is obvious. And for argument's sake, my jaw drops at any suggestion that we can speak of parts of reality in f

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1: overview

a cell, a word, > a flower, a human being - i.e., no consciousness is required. > > Edwina > > > > On Mon 16/10/17 3:04 PM , "Stephen C. Rose" stever...@gmail.com sent: > > For what its worth, I see Reality as embracing all, everything, by any > name or with

Re: Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1: overview

t; > It seems to me that the work of creation in the fine arts is a very > different matter and has its own, to my mind, inestimable value. So now, to > prove that point to myself--as if it needed proving-- I'll go listen to a > recording of a Mozart piano concerto for the pure

Re: Fw: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 2.6

I suspect the fundamental reality of Peirce's thought was there at the start and that his later work was consistent with what he had always thought. After the PM was in place, everything was clarification. The revolution lay in the work he anticipated would get done in future times as a result of h

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Categories vs. Elements (was Lowell Lecture 2.14)

These are some issues we might chew on. Does Pierce's influence extend beyond the academy? Did Peirce see ethics and aesthetics as essential to triadic thinking? Did he intend his philosophy to have wide influence beyond the scientific community? Are there any public intellectuals who have depen

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's Influence and Legacy (was Categories vs. Elements)

midt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Stephen C. Rose > wrote: > >> These are some issues we might chew on. >> >> Does Pierce's influence extend beyond the academy? >> >> Did Peirce see ethics and aesthetics as essential

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Categories vs. Elements (was Lowell Lecture 2.14)

ear Stephen, list, > > I suspect the answer to your entire list of questions depends on > recognition of eudaimonia as the ultimate aim; that is, the manner in which > we classify those who have membership in the river of pragmaticism. > > Best, > J > > On Fri, Dec 8, 20

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's Influence and Legacy (was Categories vs. Elements)

l artifacts, but the arts > themselves.* *One day the last portrait of Rembrandt* *and the last bar > of Mozart will have ceased to be—**though possibly a colored canvas and a > sheet of notes may remain—**because the last eye and the last ear > accessible to their message **will hav

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's Influence and Legacy (was Categories vs. Elements)

Thanks, Daniel --I am concerned mainly with helping us human beings think a bit more consciously. So I start with the vague -- whatever comes up in the mind and then the index is for me a group of values I deem universal and I assume that the symbol is our consciousness, us, forming some conclusio

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Categories vs. Elements (was Lowell Lecture 2.14)

gt; > > That is, would you count Peirce as *that* successful man of insight, > impartiality, and truly popular gifts, who turned his attention to it — to > secure to it the requisite elegance? > > > > So, where is it, > > where is that elegant logical form of human reason

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Categories vs. Elements (was Lowell Lecture 2.14)

the Absolute? Absolute Truth, Absolute Actuality, Absolute > Horizon... > > > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Stephen C. Rose > wrote: > >> I am going to write some sentences which I believe are consistent with >> Peirce. I think we are fallible and therefore

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: Categories vs. Elements (was Lowell Lecture 2.14)

> > > To which, I would add, > > "My dear sir, it is unlikely that you are not mistaken but why such > absolute truth?" > > > > From CP 5.402 to CP 5.189 > > > > With best wishes, > Jerry Rhee > > On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 5:24 PM, Stephen C. Rose

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

Sounds like universal agreement on choice, freedom, options and so forth. Concur. Instinct might have some meaning but options are more real the more consciously decisions are made and the more choices one allows oneself. Peirce by making the triadic a sort of default effects a massive block to not

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature

er than direct interaction [as referred to by > John Collier], then, this mediative process can include the knowledge base > known as Thirdness. As Peirce observed, "the objective final opinion is > independent of the thoughts of any particular men, but is not independent >

Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Peirce is intelligible in the way anyone else is -- randomly and imperfectly. See Shakespeare scholarship over time. My favorite example of the miasm that applies to comprehension is the typical greeting one gets after a sermon. On examination what the person is lauding is her own hearing which has

Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

I meant fallible! amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:03 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > Peirce is intelligible in the way anyone else is -- randomly and > imperfectly. See Shakespeare scholarship over time. My favorite example of > the miasm that applies to compreh

Re: Towards welcoming newcomers to Peirce, was, [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

Agreed. It's an excellent notion -- with maybe a nod to the arc being a bit stronger than any counter-currents. Fits in with continuity, fallibility and warrants inclusion in a notion of what Peirce is up to. It is realistic! Look at what's happening now. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, Dec

Re: Towards welcoming newcomers to Peirce, was, [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.4

concept of meliorism is very > similar to Peirce’s concept of evolutionary love. The belief in the idea > that things can improve over time has been mentioned in relation to her > feminism and the feminism of Emily Dickinson. The concept is fertile ground > for pragmatism. > > Mary

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.6

When I was in my 20s living on North Orchard Street in Lincoln Park in Chicago I vividly remember entering my building after a day's work and stopping. I turned and began to pound the marble-like wall above the row of mailboxes at eye level. Unbidden came a cry, "There are too many truths!" It was

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nativity scenes

By the same token, not all fundamentalists agree on everything and fundamentalism lite -- a sort of trust of the text in the absence of other data -- is probably widespread. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > List, Peter, Jon S, > > I very much

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.10

I think there are myriad ways that things move from 1 to 2 to 3 -- each thought process is one of trillions. Sometimes the primal 1 wrestles with brutal 2 and the willed decision is a no -- all in seconds. Other times the process might emerge as a 1 topic and be amplified by 2 an index and then eme

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.10

condness” (EP2:267). > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* 2-Jan-18 08:12 > *To:* Gary Fuhrman > *Cc:* Peirce List > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.10 > > > > I think there are myriad w

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.10

ieve Gary R. has argued elsewhere (I hope > he will correct me if I am misremembering), viable hypotheses (1ns) > generally come only from minds (3ns) well-prepared by experience (2ns) in > accordance with the vector of aspiration (2ns→3ns→1ns). > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Ola

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.11

I do not understand how these designations have any fixed or even useful purpose apart from whatever the First may be. It seems to me that the First determines what follows just as the sum of First and Second impacts and is changed by the Third. The designation of three aspects of the third seems s

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.11

d read it again, setting > aside my preconceptions enough to leave room for some new (to me) > conceptions. > > > > It doesn’t always work, but it works often enough that I’m still learning > new things from Peirce papers that I’ve read before. Anyway that’s my only > s

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.12

I was rereading Brent and found that James had zapped publication of the Lowell Lectures because he could not follow them. That eases my mind a bit. Brent also notes that Peirce himself said he has evolved a way of thinking that almost anyone could employ. I find that suggestive. amazon.com/author

Re: [PEIRCE-L] "I don't believe in word senses." (was Lowell Lecture 3.11

Gary: I wonder what it could mean to be “bound by” a symbol introduced > by somebody else, if (as you wrote) “the purpose of the person who > coins a word should not constrain the way that others may use it.” > John: To avoid confusion, anyone who uses a word should be consistent with its defini

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.13

Peirce, I thought said all thought is in signs. In CP signs appear many more times than thought or thinking. In between with over 700 mentions is consciousness which seems to me significant. I wonder if he believed consciousness was a condition of active thought and of signs as those vaguenesses an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God

Best thing I have seen in ages! Duly tweeted. *Stephen C. Rose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* ‏ @stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose> A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, Cosmology, and the Reality of God | Schmidt | Signs - International Journal of Semiotics http

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Here's something http://blog.uvm.edu/aivakhiv/2010/05/12/between-whitehead-peirce/ amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > John, Edwina, list, > > I've nothing to add at the moment, I too completely agree with the thrust > of John's post. Let's ho

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Is Peirce's anti-psychologism really putting down the brain as a source of conscious thinking? I thought he was simply flagging the limits of psychology as a basis for explaining things. Not a big deal but I do think the brain or whatever we take to be our inner thinking mechanism is quite a precio

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

The only rule I follow after being duly notified is that I try to relate things to Peirce. Otherwise equality reigns. amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > Edwina, List: > > I never have and never would set myself up as gatekeeper to Peirce or

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

Peirce may have avoided the term biowhatever and more than likely quantum also. But Peirce certainly did say things that were not merely intuitive about how things develop but which may also have enabled thngs to develop.Things for which he had no name because they did not exist. That is one way pr

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

t how > *human* minds work (although it did include some experiments on other > animals). Frederik Stjernfelt takes a close look at the anti-psychologism > of Peirce and other logicians in his book *Natural Propositions*. > > > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Peter Ska

Re: Logic as semeiotic in relation to theoretical and practical psychology, was [PEIRCE-L] Biosemiosis (was Lowell Lecture 3.12

wo prepare. > > > Best, > > > Gary R > > [image: Gary Richmond] > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>* > >

  1   2   3   4   5   >