Jon S., Jeff et al.,
Jon, thanks for jumping in here while I was occupied elsewhere. I’m essentially
in agreement with what you say, but i’m responding here before reading
subsequent posts in the thread, so for now I’ll just point to some Peirce texts
relevant to these issues.
The 1904
Jeff, some responses interleaved …
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu]
Sent: 7-Dec-15 15:35
Gary F., Gary R., List,
Sorry for the errors in transcribing Nathan's table. I put it into my notes,
and then added a bunch of
Jeff, responses interleaved again …
Gary f.
-Original Message-
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu]
Sent: 8-Dec-15 14:10
Hello Jon S., Gary F., List,
Jon, given what you say in 1&2 below, then we do have a question. Gary F. says
that qualisigns
Gary, List:
Based on the excerpt below, would a perceptual judgment be properly
classified as a dicent sinsign? And would the percept itself be a rhematic
indexical sinsign? Or is the percept not yet a sign at all?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur
Jon A.S.,
IF (I say If!) we can consider the percept as the subject of the perceptual
judgment, then I think rhematic indexical sinsign is probably how I would
classify it. However, I think we can just as well (maybe better) consider the
percept as the object of the sign (the perceptual
Jon Alan Schmidt asked: is publication of W9 still imminent? Any update on
W11, which at one time was expected to be ready about a year after W9?
I'll look into this and see what I can find out.
Best,
Gary R
[image: Gary Richmond]
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
Thanks, Gary F. Continuing to muse out loud ... If the percept is not a
sign of some other object, but rather the (only?) object of the sign that
is the perceptual judgment, and "perceptual judgments are the first
premises of all our reasonings" (CP5.116), then how are our thoughts (i.e.,
Gary, List:
Thank you for distributing this. Just curious, is publication of W9 still
imminent? Any update on W11, which at one time was expected to be ready
about a year after W9?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
Hi Gary F., List,
G.F: Perhaps, but I think it’s better to take each essay in its own terms
first before trying to map them onto each other.
J.D. I appreciate the approach of taking each essay on its own terms
first--especially when it comes to helping those who are relatively new to
Jon S., Gary F.,
Peirce does say that the percept serves, in the first instance, as the
immediate object, where the qualisign is brought into a relation to the
percipuum--so that the percipuum is determined to be in relation to the same
object as the qualisign. Collecting a group of percepts
From: shannon...@gmail.com on behalf of Shannon Dea
Sent: Tuesday, December 8, 2015 5:24 PM
To: peirce-soci...@westga.edu
Subject: [peirce-society-list] Peirce Society Annual Meeting Program and Agenda
Dear
Gary R, Jon A. S., list,
Go to the History page at the new P.E.P. website (activate your
javascript if you usually keep it turned off), and scroll down to "5.
Planning for future history."
http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/#history
Of course, the Peirce Edition Project is not exactly flush with
Hi,
(*1*) When I proposed the notion of the isomorphism between cell language
(or cellese for short) and the human language (or humanese) in 1997 [1, 2,
3], one of the most striking features of both languages that caught my
attention was the phenomenon of double articulations, i.e., letters
Hi Peircers,
I am wondering if there are more than one kinds of *signs*, just as there
are more than one kinds of *particles* in physics, chemistry, and biology.
As I will detail in another post to follow, there is some theoretical
reasons to believe that the principle of "*double articulation*"
Peirce List:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17890
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17894
JBD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17902
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/17907
Ben:
Thanks for the link, but it provides no additional information beyond what
was stated in the minutes--W9 "is slated for completion later in
2015," and nothing about the timetable for W11. I am aware that Irving
Anellis, who was preparing copious annotations for the latter, passed away
In fact, also read "4. The early twenty-first century"
http://www.iupui.edu/~peirce/#history
On 12/9/2015 9:25 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
Gary R, Jon A. S., list,
Go to the History page at the new P.E.P. website (activate your
javascript if you usually keep it turned off), and scroll down to
Jon A, Gary F, Jeff, lists,
You asked
" . . . (i) would a perceptual judgment be properly classified as a dicent
sinsign?
And (ii) would the percept itself be a rhematic indexical sinsign? Or
(iii) is the
percept not yet a sign at all?"
Let me try to answer these questions based on the ITR
18 matches
Mail list logo