Gary f.
Do not loose hope. - It truly is cumbersome to proceed from thinking in
trichotomies into thinking in triads. - Most transform even trchotomies
into dyads, or worse still, into dichotomies.
With dichotomies, one deals with megations, without mediation.
Thus not in a Peircean way.
Kir
Helmut, list,
Pastness is always relative to present and future, that is what Peirce
means. There is a feeling of pastness attacheched to memories and
reminiscences. Which is the ground for recognizing them AS memories.
Best, Kirsti
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 3.5.2018 17:40:
John, Stephen, li
John,
I took up your reference to vol 4 in Chronological ed. - I you can shed
any more light on loops and twists in CPS's way to his latest
existential graps, I would be most grateful.
Greimas, the Lithuanian semiotician I have met and discussed with, used
a square similar to the one in page
Helmut, list,
I do not get confused very easily on these topics:) But I think I quite
understand your dilemmas. Helmut. Negation is no easy topic.
Formal logic may succeed in making it seem easy. To my mind mostly
because the sentences to be formalized are invented for the purposes of
demons
John,
Well put, indeed!
Kirsti M.
John F Sowa kirjoitti 3.6.2018 00:57:
On 6/2/2018 5:33 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
I vaguely recall that [Wittgenstein] said like: "About (this or that)
you must not speak"... I just remember that when I read it, I thought:
"No, you don´t tell me when to shut u
John, P-listers,
I wonder why science(s) seems to be left out of the context in the
discussions in this thread. To my mind they are direly needed in order
to make sense , ecp. of the latter part of the title, to start with.
So:
What does a variable refer to?
Within empirical science(s)
John, list,
First, I wish to thank John for his comments to my earlier post to the
list. I agreed with all, but one point. Which consist in an, to my mind,
unwarranted focus on classifications. Peirce in several occasions wrote
about KINDS. (Should be easy enought to google). - Kinds (as a
ph
List,
After reading some more of the discussion on these threads, I wish to
remind all of endless feminist disputes on essentialism and
universalism. The answer does not have the form: either/or.
Best, Kirsti
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Repl
Thank you, Edwina.
Kirsti
Edwina Taborsky kirjoitti 16.9.2018 17:35:
Kirstima
Thank you so much for your very astute and wise posts - both of them.
You have pointed out, very subtly and yet accurately, the problem [in
my view] of the many posts on 'exact terminology'.
Edwina
On Su
Jerry,
John is quoting what Peirce stated in several contexts. So he is right.
In other contexts, CSP writes a lot on unconscius (subconscious etc)
mind. But he definitely considered his normative logic only applicable
to deliberate thought. - He also stated that a person is a bunch of
habit.
The answer offered here to Jerry Chandler by John Sowa I find a very
good answer.
Cheers, Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 19.9.2018 17:33:
Jerry LRC,
As Kirsti said, the subject line about categories and modes was
a long thread about Peirce's 1903 classification of the sciences.
I plan to pos
Jon,
The presupposition in your question(s)you do not take up is the
presupposition that all signs can and may be (easily) classified. - If
you look up some detailed versions of Peirces classifications of signs,
and you'll see what kinds of problems I mean.
"Our existing universe" does not g
John,
I found it very interesting that you took up metaphor in connection with
"laws of nature". I once got across with a study on metaphors in science
with a side note by the researchers that natural scientist often got
angry on any hint that they may have been using such. - It was just
some
Jon A.
Seems valid to me. But it does not answer the quest for understanding. -
If you see my point.
Kirsti
Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 7.4.2017 02:02:
Jon, List ...
I've mentioned the following possibility several times before, but
maybe not too recently.
A sign relation L is a subset of a carte
What an excellent post!
Just an addition to what John said on bacteria:
It seems hard to (in prevalent culture) to understand the fact that we
are not directly nourished by our intake of nutritients (food), but via
the bacteria in our digestive system. We feed the (kinds of) bacteria,
which f
Jon A.,
I was attepting to express as understandably as possible. To offer
answers to your quest for exactness would take more time than I have at
my disposal. - Sorry for that!!
Best,
Kirsti
Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 10.4.2017 21:44:
Kirsti, List:
I am indeed exploring the hypothesis th
Jon,
Whilst I agree with your points on what must be taken seriously, there
remains serious problems with understanding understanding.
Your approach comes from information theoretical viewpoint. Which relies
on bits. Not so human understanding.
All information theories rely on a certain kin
John,
Thanks a lot! A most interesting post. I'll look up your paper.
Even though I have approached these questions from a different angle ,
I wholly agree with your conlusion views on the nature of thirds. And
on the arguments offered by Peirce. - It has seemed to me, too, that he
did not
Tom,list,
Well put, well put, indeed!
Also, I wish to remind you all, that CSP did not view lawa of nature as
eternally unchangable. To his mind, tehy do change, albeit mostly very,
very slowly.
Think about climate change. With it very, very slow changes meet changes
with other time-scales.
John, list,
The invasion of Big Data into social sciences makes critical views on
Carnap (& co) utterly important nowadays.
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 24.4.2017 04:34:
Helmut, Jeffrey, Jon A, Clark, list,
HR
Not every triadic relation is categorically thirdness. But which are?
That's a
Dear listers,
I do not think the title of this thread is well-thought. There is
nothing such as a "Space-Time Continuum" which could be reasonably
discussed about. Even though it is often repeated chain of words.
For the first: Continuity does not mean the same as does 'continuum'. -
and th
Alkuperäinen viesti
Aihe: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?
Päiväys: 29.5.2017 18:13
Lähettäjä: kirst...@saunalahti.fi
Vastaanottaja: Jerry LR Chandler
Jerry,
Well, stricly speaking you are not taking up a triad, but three
interconnected pr
Jerry, list,
In my view (with no access to the latest writings of CSP) did not just
anticipate continuity, but grasped it, both in respect of space and
time. But he did not solve the new kinds of problems arising with those.
One essential issue, to my mind, is that he advised not to mix them
Jon,
Thanks for your prompt response. I've read your mails, I do know you see
the problem.
Kirsti
Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 29.5.2017 18:36:
Kirsti, List,
I know what you mean about the title but decided to take it
more as a reference to the revolution in physics that began
with relativity and qu
Nothing should be does not quite amount to nothing is. CSP was for the
first, not for the second.
Are there dogmas in science? Could there be? If so, how could one tell?
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 1.6.2017 09:34:
On 5/31/2017 10:48 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
I agree that #3 is not a dogma o
Clark,
I fully agree with your points.
Kirsti
Clark Goble kirjoitti 1.6.2017 22:33:
On May 30, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Helmut Raulien
wrote:
I am not happy with tychism: Conservation laws require infinite
exactness of conservation: Energy or impulse before a reaction must
be exactly the same befor
Helmut,
"Morphogenetic field" is just a name, a term standing for a theoretical
concept. Naming is not explaining. - For explaining anything, a theory
is needed, with sound experimental evidence backing it up.
Do you think the experimental evidence Sheldrake has been presenting is
not sound?
Dear J. Rhee,
You addressed you post especially to me, but I can't see any connection
to my recent post to the list.
Seeing the host of copies you listed up, I guess you take your point to
be a most important one.
Please do enlighten me on your reasons and grounds.
With most kind regards.
Dear Jerry R., list
No theoretical paper gives detailed enough description of the
experiments, experimental designs & the process of conducting the
experiments in order to check its soundness.
Which is a time consuming job & which cannot be done without being
properly skilled in designing an
Jerry R., list
The question of "sizing" electromagnetic "fields" is not the kind of
question to be posed first. (See e.g. Kaina Stoicheia). If you pose the
question, the answer is: Not possible to answer it.
The problem of morphic (etc.) resonance must be tackled before any
measuring of any
Jerry R.
You wrote:
J.R. " why do you not even bring up the biology when you're so ready to
bring up matters that are of importance for you?"
IS THERE a certain kind of biology, which deserves to be called THE
biology? - If so, what are the criteria you use?
Biology today is going through
Helmut,
Now you are talking! Excellent post.
"Interaction" is one way of taking relational logic seriously.
But it does not follow that "explanation" (if based on scientific
evidence, may not have any objective definition. Or whatever the term
used. I would prefer the expression: "objective
John, list,
Thanks for interesting points sheading light to the historical contexts
of Sheldrake's work.
I 'm quite interested in knowing which was the year he spent at
Harward & whether he got familiar with Peirce by then. Which I do not
think was the case.
To my mind it seems that Sheldr
John,
Actually Sheldrake was able to test a hypothesis (which, to my knowledge
he did not himself believe in at the time)on non-local effects. His
series of experiments (one will never do) on pidgeons are truly
ingenious and suberb AS experimental designs.
If that is agreed (after thorough st
Jerry, list
Dictionary may not be the source to turn to. ERGO is an abbreviation
used by CSP to his audience at the time. There are hidden parts, assumed
to be self-evidently known to all his readers.
In another parts of his writings CSP tells that the primary and
fundamental logical relatio
Well, it is well known that CSP was not so very keen on existence. Even
though he succeeded in completing his Existential Graphs to his full
approval. But on being that was not the case.
Being was to him the key to what is real. What was real (to him) was
effects.
Does belief in God have e
Jerry,
When CSP used "ERGO", that was a case of ENTHYMEME (cf. Aristotle). The
rheme "If - then" remains implied. One is supposed to regocnize that.
Logic is not linguistics, and shluld not be replaced, not even partly,
by lingquitics. Even though there are a host of philosophers, quite
famo
Hi, Jerry,
Where in earth did you take the "moral authority" you (mistakenly)
assume I was refering to?
Pity you did not understand my points.
But if Hilbert is your leading star in the universe of sciences, then it
is understandable that you hold on to his mistakes, as well as his
achievem
My applauds, Gene!
What a great wake-up call.
Kirsti Määttänen
Eugene Halton kirjoitti 15.6.2017 20:10:
Gary f: "I think it’s quite plausible that AI systems could reach
that level of autonomy and leave us behind in terms of intelligence,
but what would motivate them to kill us? I don’t think
Hello Brad,
A very interesting theme you have taken on. A challenging one, too.
Apel and Deely come from very different traditions. I guess about all
listers have read Deely (on Peirce), but none to my knowledge has read
Apel (on Peirce). Except me. - I'd like to know if there are some other
Thank you, John (again) for clearing up the issue with utmost clarity!
Gratefully,
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 18.6.2017 16:39:
On 6/17/2017 5:45 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
The term "positive" is the word that Peirce uses to describe
the character of the philosophical sciences--as well
Gene,
The most important message ever in Peirce-list is this one you posted!
I repeat: ever!
I am literally schocked by the fact, that I am the first to respond.
This late.
Am I conversing with human beings? - Or just kinds of extensions to
automatization of everyday life & "common sense" m
Hah. The minute I sent my message on no response, I got John's response.
This time, John, I have to say: Wrong, wrong, wrong,
You just don't know what you are talking about. - just walking on very
thin ice and expecting your fame on other fields with get you through.
It is not that some iden
Jon,
I like your tenor, but do not quite agree.
Yes, linguistics has changed just as you say. But logic?
In my view, the very grounds of modern logic are groumbling down. But it
is an ongoing process, with no predictable end.
Now we live in late modern ot early post modern times. Just to giv
Dear John,
I sincerely apologize for any negative feelings my latest mail addressed
to you may have caused.
I have been reprimanded by list managers that my tenor and tone are not
tolerated. In a democratic list, so I am told.
There have been three complaints. Off-list. So I'm told.
My rar
Gary, list,
First: I did not feel offended, I felt surprised. The expertice and
authority of John F. Sowa were so clear to me that I could not think of
anyone,least John, to take any offence in my stating my view so bluntly.
- Which I apologized.
After the suprise I do feel offended. I was c
A bold interpretation. I wonder whether to quote is enough to give
grounds for it.
It almost sounds as if stating that the main purpose of CSP was to
uphold old, established views. Which is surely not meant to be the
message?
I do not quite understand what "repurposing" means, especially in
Peirce did not use the term "semantics. But he did use the term:
"semeiotics". He even gave advice in spelling the word. This was his
advice: " see-my-o-tics".
Anyone can google this, I assume. If need be.
In my view Gary R. is gravely wrong in assuming that CSP was all his
life after SIGNS.
Clark understood pretty correctly what I meant with my post: A question
of shifting emphasis by CSP. Which to my mind is shown in a shift of
interest from trichotomies (and systems of sign classification) into
triads and triadic thinking (as a method).
On these issues I have written extensivel
Triads belog to the system of Categories, the hardest part in Peircean
philosphy to fully grasp. It is much easier to use only classifications.
This appoach involves confining to Secondness, as if it were the only,
or even the most important part in his philosphy. - Peirce definitely
left this
Helmut,
You wrote: "...eg. what would be the difference between "qualisign" and
"icon". First, they are ripped off from different trichotomies (of which
one is left out, by the way). Second, these present something arrived at
from differing Categorical aspetcs (or perspectives). Without workin
Concernig the supplement:
Not just continental hybris, to my mind. I agree with Apel on this
"something higher". Kirsti
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 4.8.2017 00:12:
Supplement:
I just have tried to read something on the internet about Apel´s
Peirce- reception. Wow, this is interesting. Is "I-thin
Jerry,
A misunderstanding here. I did not mean all sign classifications in the
world. I meant those parts in CSP's work where he developed more and
more complex classification systems; and that taken in the context of
all his work. - Also, when said: "I have not found (etc...), I meant in
the
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 4.8.2017 21:06:
Kirsti,
you wrote: "Also, with triads, thinking in "parts" does not do.
According to my
view, that is. Nor do the idea of "containing"."
Instead you wrote about: " Categorical aspects (or perspectives). "
But, isn´t this a kind of containing or compos
Jerry, list,
It is a historical fact that CSP left his work on sign classifications
aside and proceeded towards other aims. My firm conviction is that he
found that way a dead end. - Anyone is free to disagree. - But please,
leave me out of any expectations of participating in further discuss
List,
I did not claim that CSP in any way REJECTED the results of his work
with sign classifications.
Kirsti
g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 5.8.2017 19:52:
I've been looking for some evidence which would support Kirsti's claim
that "It is a historical fact that CSP left his work on sign
classif
Helmut,
That is good to know. Thanks.
Kirsti
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 5.8.2017 22:09:
Kirsti,
you wrote: "I find it difficult to answer your questions, Helmut,
because I do not
have a clear enough idea of what you are aiming at. What is the
ground
for you interest in CSP? What do you aim to
Letters to lady Welby need to be interpreted and evaluated on the basis
to whom they were addressed to. Lady Welby was highly interested in sign
classifications. Classifications were a dominant topic at the times, in
vogue. (Remnants of this vogue are still effective.) - Peirce was
explaining h
Helmut,
Todays systems theories were not known by Peirce. Thus he dis not use
the TERM (which is just a name for a theoretical concept) in the sense
(meaning) it is used nowadays.
I have studied some early cybernetics, then Bertallanffy and Luhman in
more detail. But I left keeping up with t
John,
Your posts greatly appreciated. But Peirce did write on cyclical
arithmetics. With detailed instructions on how demonstrate the rules by
experimenting with a pack of cards.
Detailed instructions include strict rules on how to achieve a random
order with the pack of cards at hand. Only
John, list
In response, John wrote:
"Kirsti,
But Peirce did write on cyclical arithmetics. With detailed
instructions on how demonstrate the rules by experimenting with
a pack of cards.
Yes. But he used that cycle for a different purpose. That
cycle represents patterns in a part
As wished by John, some comments to the jpg, as well as on some comments
presented:
I find the diagram a misleading, not a clarifying one.
I found the quote provided by Tommi a highly relevant problematization
of the issue. I also agree with the critical notes provided by Jerry, up
to a poi
There is a link between ideas of recursion and that of cyclical
arithmetics. Has this not been recognized?
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 2.9.2017 20:53:
On 9/1/2017 6:37 PM, Tommi Vehkavaara wrote:
I do not see how those who take ontology as the first philosophy could
be convinced with this di
List,
I agree with Jerry.
Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 24.9.2017 22:41:
List, Gary:
Thanks, Gary for initiating a fresh informative stream.
It seems that how one interprets this opening rhetoric stance
(“hook”) is rather dependent on the number of symbols systems (
linguistic, musical,
Gary R.
You misread my message. If it seemed as especially pointing at the
snippet you took up, it has been unintentional.
As a list manager your concern on the snippet is understandable.
However, as an approach by a list manager, I must say I do not feel good
about the way you expressed you
Gary,
Is it truly possible to just by defining to make oneself into strictly
separate parts?
An interesting question.
Nevertheless, this discussion does not deserve continuation. All your
points have become quite clear. With the undertones.
Kirsti
Gary Richmond kirjoitti 25.9.2017 05:00:
List, Jerry and John
Highly problematic, I agree. But it is not true that any
contradiction,or all contradictions imply everything. Not logically, not
really.
Everything does not mean the same as anything. For CSP anything remains
an open (vague) question UNTILL further studies & determinat
List, John, Jerry and Jon,
LEM presents one of the three basic misassuptions in modern logic. For
all I know CSP and Brouwer came to similar conclusions independently.
They also offered their grounds and conclusions very differently.
There was a deep change in math and locic during and after
ut there to pick up
and see. Seeing just does not happen that way.
And to note: my name is NOT kirstima. I am not identical with my e-mail
address. I always sign my post with my name. Which is:
Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 15.10.2017 01:47:
List, John:
Comments on “technical
John,
Possibilities may be real, but they do not exist untill they become
actual. Thus a token.
There always is the Scylla and Charybnis between understandability and
logic. But claiming existance to possibilities just does not hold.
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 17.10.2017 05:48:
This thr
debatable issues: 'real',
'exist', and 'actual'. To analyze the issues, I suggested Quine's
dictum: "To be is to be the value of a quantified variable."
(And by the way, I apologize for typing 'Kirstima'. I wrote 'Kirsti'
in my pr
Hah! To the point Ben!
Kirsti
Ben Novak kirjoitti 19.10.2017 14:30:
Dear List:
Jon A. writes in his first post on this string: "Some of the
difficulty here is likely due to the fact that there is no verb form
of "reality," which could then be used to talk about both _actual
_things and _real _
Ontology/ epistemology taken as it has been does not apply to Peirce.
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 19.10.2017 15:53:
Jon AS, Edwina, Jerry LRC, Gary R, Mike, and Ben,
Jon
By Peirce's definitions--at least, the ones that he carefully
employed late in his life--the verb "exist" may only be used
Thank you, John, for clearing the issue. I wholly agree. By the way,
using the term 'universe' is fine with me.
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 20.10.2017 00:03:
Kirsti and Gary R,
Resorting to Quine cannot be taken as any starter.
My note was based on three lines by Peirce, which Quine summ
Thank you very much John for a most enlightening post.
Recto/verso issue (in other forms, of course) was taken up & became
somewhat popular within feminist philosophy 1980's and 1990's. I felt
uncomfortable with it. But could not pinpoint the locical (in the narrow
sense) errors.
A pseudogra
-
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 to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" i
OK. Thanks. Kirsti
Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 30.10.2017 20:45:
Kirsti, List,
It would be more accurate to say, and I'm sure it's what John meant,
that Peirce's explanation of logical connectives and quantifiers in
terms of a game between two players attempting to support or defeat
a proposition, r
John, Jon, list
Some comments in response
In Peirce's view logic needs mathematical grounds, but I have not found
anything to support the view that there should be such sharp distinction
as you propose. – There were many, many classifications of sciences he
developed over the years. Of which
Jon,
You expressed my point even in what I did not put into words.
Kirsti
Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 3.11.2017 23:06:
Kirsti, List,
The Greek “dia-” means across, apart, or through.
And Peirce recognizes that one is often talking
to oneself or one's future self, so the number
of people that one is s
Gary f.,
I cannot understand your use of quotation marks. Why say: ... his
"categories"??? Insted of... his categories???
Also, instead or warning against confusing SPOT, DOT and BLOT, it would
have been most interesting to hear how they are related. This is all
about relational logic, is it
Gary f.,
Seems to me you are mistaken. Categories and elements have a different
meaning. It not just giving new names. I.e. not just about
terminonology. They are not synonyms.
But if anyone uses Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness as just names
for classes of signs, it may appear so. A mo
Gary f. wrote:
- “Categories”, “elements”, “Firstness”, “Secondness”
and “Thirdness” are all technical terms of Peircean phenomenology...
Many mistakes in this. - Just offer one example where CSP explicitly
states that these are TECHNICAL TERMS. (If you can.)
Categories concern definitely
John,
Thank you very much! - I was wondering why I did not find PEG in the
list.
Now it's all making sense.
With gratitude,
Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 27.11.2017 09:05:
Gary F, Mary L, Kirsti, Jerry LRC, and list,
In 1911, Peirce presented his clearest and simplest version of EGs.
He ex
Jon,
I agree!
Kirsti
Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 27.11.2017 17:30:
John, Kirsti, List ...
JFS:
In 1911, Peirce clarified that 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
couldn't or sho
John, Jon, list,
Thank you for a most interesting discussion.
Not being so keen on set theory, or the utterly simple assertions formal
logic has so far dealt with, I would like to draw your attention to
these assertion of mine:
If there exists a sheet of assertion, for example a blackboard o
John & Jon,
The two paragraphs offered by John to clarify the meaning of the verb
'to indentify' did not do the job for me. Quite the contrary. Many
questions arose.
JFS: "In mathematics, it is common practice to "identify" two
structures that are isomorphic. Some mathematicians call tha
John, Jon,
I agree with John on the issue of "every word.."
Opening the pdf by John did not succeed. So a little note on his wording
in:
JFS; In summary, the range of contexts for writing or using EGs is as
open ended as the contexts for using any other kinds of signs.
It's best to distingu
John,
Thanks for changing the subject line!
I'm well aware of hypostatic abstraction and I have given a lot of
thought to its position in the overall philosophy of CSP. Which is the
context for both EG's and his logical graphs in a more general sense.
In a certain narrow sense hypostatic abs
List,
Peirce did not just "refer to" some well-established "facts" of his
time; he has all the time been developing a whole theory. All good and
true theories go beyond any number of "facts" (id est: array of
empirical findings). It could be called 'hypo-determination' (just a
coined word, c
John,
I'll rephrase my point (which you seem to have missed).
We started from your post saying:
JFS
The distinction between a verb form such as 'asserting' and a noun
such as 'assertion' is what Peirce called *hypostatic abstraction*.
To illustrate the point, Peirce used a term that Molière i
Gary f,
A kind remark on a typo in lecture 3, which you may wish to correct. It
is in short paragraph consisting of three lines. It begins: "A quality,
or Firstness, has mere logical..." Third sentence thereof should begin
with a capital, but it does not. It should be: "A fact, or Secondness..
Cassiano, Jon, list
I have been studying style in connection with argument analysis for a
long time. Recognizing textual markers of irony forms a part of the
method I developed in 1990's in my university lectures in Finland.
In 2000's I started a slow read on Kaina Stoicheia (New Elements) in
Listers,
Perhaps It is good to remember historical changes with names used for
geometrical point. Euclid introduced the word SEMEION, and defined it as
that which has no parts, and his followers started to that word instead
of the earlier STIGME . – But (with latin) the Romans & later Boethius
Gary f., list,
g...@gnusystems.ca kirjoitti 21.12.2017 16:39:
"Asking whether a sign has parts is like asking whether a line has
points."
Yes its does. But that does not answer the questions I posed. Perhaps I
should have added: What do you (listers) think?
Gary f.: " By the way,
accordin
Helmut,
I was not using a metaphor. Nor was I suggesting what you inferred I
did. I just posed two questions, one on sign, one on meaning. Which, of
course, are deeply related. But how?
To my mind both questions are worth careful ponderings. Especially in
connection with this phase in the Lo
John, list,
I have been out of reach for more than a week. A heap of mails in this
thread. My responses may seem to many as ancient history. For that
reason I'll leave the comment responded below. And I'll try to be
concice.
No arguments on words and reference, however detailed, can possibl
Gary f, list
My source on Eucleides was Grattan-Guinness (The Fontana history of the
mathematical sciences) and my thirty years old notes on the topic. (&
Liddell and Scott, of course.)
It is important to keep in mind that no such divisions (or
classifications) between sciences that are take
John, list,
Now, with John, we are talking!
This was the last post I (quite hastily) read before leaving the
e-world. - And I left with a happy tone.
Best, Kirsti
John F Sowa kirjoitti 22.12.2017 17:38:
On 12/22/2017 7:50 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
for instance, you can say that a dicisi
Jerry, list,
JERRY:
"Exactly what CSP means by "corpuscular philosophy" is a mystery to me.
Was he arguing for the Boscowitz atoms derived from vortices?"
No mystery to me what CSP meant with "corpuscular philosphy". - The
problem with your question lies in "Exactly what..." - It (logically )
Helmut,
Helmut Raulien kirjoitti 22.12.2017 18:14:
Kirsti,
is the term "part" already defined?
No, it is not. You hit the point with "virtual".
Best, Kirsti
-
I think, if it is defined
geometrically, then a sign does not have parts. If a sign is a
function that depends on subfunctions,
1 - 100 of 208 matches
Mail list logo
