BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon - that's a specious attempt to revisit this argument - i.e.,
your saying that 'some people might not have heard this debate
before'. Well, tough, frankly it's not worth hearing about - and -
I'm not going to revisit it with you.
I disagree that existence is a subset of reality, for that implies
that both have the same qualities. An existence/ entity can exist
within only the mode of Secondness and thus, have no generality in
it, but reality requires generality. I disagree that 'some THING'
can be real yet not exist'. If it's a 'thing' then it exists. Reality
is Thirdness, or generality and is not a thing.
And we've been over your rejection of the Sign as a triad of
Object-Representamen-Interpretant and your confining of the term
'Sign' to refer only to the mediate Representamen. Again, read 4.551
to its end.
There is no positive point in continuing this discussion since it's
been done to exhaustion before.
Edwina
On Mon 16/10/17 1:02 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
sent:
Edwina, List:
I know that we have been over this ground before, and I am not
interested in repeating our past discussions, but there may be some
following along now who were not on the List back then.
Especially late in his life, Peirce carefully distinguished reality
from existence, treating the latter as a subset of the former.
Everything that exists is real, but something can be real yet not
exist--and this is precisely the case with all generals in themselves
(not their instantiations), as well as some possibilities that have
not been (and may never be) actualized.
Likewise, anything that is general is (by definition) not
particular. If all Signs are particulars, then (by definition) no
Signs are generals.
Regards,
Jon
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Jon - we've been over these terms before. Read 4.551 and you'll see
the triad - and it's elsewhere as well.
You know perfectly well that by Sign [capital S] I refer to the
triad of Object-Representamen-Interpretant. The Representamen is
general when in a mode of Thirdness.
But you know all of that anyway.
Edwina
On Mon 16/10/17 12:22 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com
[2] sent:
Edwina, List:
I think that it would be helpful if you could clarify exactly how
you distinguish reality from existence in your statements below.
I am also wondering where in Peirce's writings you find the view
that every Sign is "a triadic particular...existent in space and
time." On my reading, that would preclude any Sign from being truly
general.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur
Philosopher, Lutheran Laymanwww.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [3] -
twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt [4]
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 8:50 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Gary, list:
I presume you are being sarcastic.
I have always accepted the reality of generals and have posted this
view frequently. What is Thirdness????? My point, also posted
frequently, is that these generals, as real, are only 'existential'
within 'material' instances, i.e., Signs, which are a triadic
particular...existent in space and time, whether as a concept/word or
a material entity [bacterium]. I don't see that Reality/Generals have
any existence 'per se' outside of their articulation within
Signs...and this view has been stated often enough by me - and of
course, by Peirce.
So, sarcasm aside - we await your next posting.
Edwina
On Mon 16/10/17 9:21 AM , g...@gnusystems.ca sent:
Edwina, List,
It’s good to see that you now accept the reality of generals, as
your previous post appeared to reject it. That said, we need to focus
on logical issues rather than metaphysical ones, as we dig deeper into
Peirce’s Lowell lectures. For Lowell 2 especially, which is all
about “necessary reasoning” and the logic of mathematics, we’ll
need to clarify those issues. I’m ready to start posting from Lowell
2 tomorrow, unless others need more time to digest Lowell 1 before we
move ahead.
As you are no doubt aware, CP 4.551 is a paragraph from “
Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism” (1906), which was his
last and most complete public statement on Existential Graphs and
their relation to his pragmaticism. In order to understand that
context, and its place in Peirce’s whole system, I think we need to
follow the development of EGs, starting with his first presentation of
them to an audience, namely Lowell 2. Thanks to the SPIN project, we
now have a chance to follow that development step by step. Peirce
regarded this as the best way of resolving the logical issues we have
been discussing in this thread. As someone with zero formal training
in formal logic, I’m really looking forward to this as a way into
deeper understanding of Peirce’s whole philosophy.
Gary f.
From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca]
Sent: 16-Oct-17 08:24
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; Jeffrey Brian Downard
Subject: Re: Re: RE: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 1: overview
Jeff, list
"Thought is not necessarily connected with a brain. It appears in
the work of bees, of crystals, and throughout the purely physical
world"....not only is thought in the organic world but it develops
there. But as there cannot be a General without Instances embodying
it, so there cannot be thought without Signs"...4.551
Peirce was not a materialist, nor am I am materialist. I am not
saying that there is nothing 'real' outside of the material world. I
am saying that 'reality' - understood as 'a General' only 'exists'
within 'instances embodying it'. This means that
Mind/thought/reason...which is a General, functions within Signs, and
Signs are triadic instances [see his explanation in the rest of
4.551]... A triadic Sign is a 'material' unit, in that it exists in
time and space, even if it is existent only as a word rather than a
bacterium.
Re your first two points - since deduction, induction, abduction,
can be valid in themselves as a format, I presume you are talking
about the true/false nature of their premises....and since the debate
seems to be on the Nature of Truth - then this issue, the truth/false
nature of the premises is relevant. Taking that use of the terms into
account [truth/false nature of the premises] , I agree with your
outline of these three forms of argument..
And I also agree with your other two points.
I don't see that my position, which rests on 4.551 and other similar
outlines by Peirce, rejects or is any different from his analysis.
Edwina
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[2]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'jonalanschm...@gmail.com\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
[3] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[4] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
