To begin with I could tell you that an object is any object of discussion or thought, like yesterday's news, today's catch, or tomorrow's sea battle, and what good would a logic be that could not talk or think of any object of discussion or thought?
Jon http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > On Jan 11, 2015, at 10:40 PM, Howard Pattee <hpat...@roadrunner.com> wrote: > > At 04:44 AM 1/11/2015, Jon Awbrey wrote: > Helmut, Howard, >> Do you have any questions about logical graphs in general or this species of >> logical graphs in particular? > > I have no problem with Peirce's logic graphs. I recommend Sowa's elaboration > of Peirce's Tutorial on Existential Graphs made clear with its many detailed > examples. > > I was simply agreeing with Helmut that there is "some deficiency of how to > apply [Perice's] theory to practice or to examples." > > Never mind the details of the ten classes of signs. What I would like to see > are realistic examples of Peirce's basic concepts like, e.g., object, > immediate, dynamic, and final interpretant, representamen and quasi mind. > > Howard
----------------------------- 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" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
