Gary R, List,
According to I. Prigogine (1917-2003), there are two types of structures
in the Universe -- (i) equilibrium STRUCTURES (e.g., table, bible, ec.)
that do not change with time nor require energy dissiaption for them to
exist, and (ii) dissipative STRUCTURES(e.g., the flame of a candle,
List:
Frankly, I do not find CSP's words and works to be either as a structure or as
a process.
How about a "obscurist" or a "fuzzy-ist"?
On the other hand, I find Michael's extraordinary clear view of philosophy:
> Peirce is the one great philosopher who escapes my definition
> of a philoso
Stephen, Michael, Gene, List,
It seems to me that in sum the argumentation so far has been that Michael
maintains that Peirce should be seen as a structuralist, Gene has countered
that Peirce is best seen as a thorough-going process philosopher, and
Michael responded to this by saying that to refe
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
Gene, Michael, List,
I would tend to agree with Gene here, especially given the situation that
Structuralism is not generally "properly understood" in the sense in which
you are suggesting, Michael.
Meanwhile, a number of Peircean scholars use 'processual' in this context
much as Gene does, and t
Dear Michael,
Sorry, but it is not in the least redundant to characterize
Peirce’s philosophy as processual. It clarifies what pervades his thinking.
Calling Peirce a structuralist, on the other hand, does not, in my opinion.
Gene
From: Michael Shapiro [mailto:poo...@earthlink.net]
S
Eugene, Michael, List,
Eugene wrote:
"I see no reason for calling Peirce a structuralist, (042714-1)
since even a structure, in Peirce, is a habit-process,
however slow or even seemingly invariant that inveterate
habit may be: it remains potentially subject to growth.
Why not simply ackno
I agree with everything you say here, Gary. Do you share my sense that the
upshot of this discussion is that such questions as whether the a priori method
is superior to authority and tenacity are generally not well posed? The a
priori method shares with the method of science the important featu
From: Kasser,Jeff
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2014 10:23 AM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Subject: RE: Fwd: [PEIRCE-L] RE: de Waal Seminar: Chapter 6, Philosophy of
Science
Hi Jeffrey, et al. Roberts is certainly a nominalist about laws, though my
former colleag
Gene, list,Structuralism properly understood does not exclude process or growth, just the opposite, so calling Peirce's doctrine "processualism" is both redundant and terminologically inadvisable, given the latter's unusualness. Cf. my 1991 book's title The Sense of Change: Language as History.Mich
Response to Michael Shapiro’s post that Peirce should be seen as a
structuralist. Shapiro: “The use by Peirce of the form "rationalized" (rather
than "rational") as a modifier of "variety" in the quotation above should be
taken advisedly. This use of the participial form, with its adversion to
Dear Fellow-Listers,I'd like to offer up the following as a take on ch. 7 and an anticipation of ch. 8, from the perspective of a non-philosopher interested in developing a Peircean theory of language for the twenty-first century:
Because
he was a practicing scientist i
12 matches
Mail list logo
