Exclusion is on my list of evils. Tolerance is on my list of goods - values
that tend to truth and beauty. Peirce connection? I believe it is
inevitable that a fully developed pragmaticism would reckon with values and
ultimately reject an ethics based on virtues (Aristotle). Connection to
Robert?
At 03:24 PM 2014-09-30, Howard Pattee wrote:
At 08:58 PM 9/29/2014, Clark
Goble wrote:
HP: To get a fairer picture of
how physicists think, please peruse
this
survey.
CG: I'd seen that before. While it's a great guide to interpretations of
quantum mechanics it really doesn't address the
What's the use of getting up in the morning?
Never mind that now, I'm already up.
Be constructive. Try to focus on something positive.
Okay, then, what's the use of logic?
You call that focused? Be more specific!
So what's the use of a logical system,
if you think of logic as embodied in
Clark, list,
Maybe I've underestimated the amount of instrumentalism - it's hard for
me to discern how seriously people take their own ideas of 'useful
fictions' in practice. Often enough the phrase 'useful fiction' seems a
cynical or self-deprecating way to say enlightening approximation.
Gary R,
Yes, that quote at the end of your post (CP2.231, also EP2:282-3) is worth
reflecting on in this context; but then that's true of the whole Speculative
Grammar section of the Syllabus. Every time I read part of it, it seems that
another word in the crossword puzzle gets filled in,
Gary F, lists,
Gary wrote that in rereading the Speculative Grammar part of the Syllabus
that this struck him:
GF: that the interpretant of a dicisign or proposition represents the sign
itself as well as its object, and represents it as an *index* -- which,
strictly speaking, lacks the
Lists,
Ive heard from Frederik that hes dealing with a patch of ill health, so we
may not hear from him for a few more days. In the meantime maybe we can all
study Chapter 3 (at least up to chapter 5) so that well be ready when
direct discussion of the dicisign doctrine resumes.
gary f.
On Oct 1, 2014, at 8:50 AM, Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com wrote:
Maybe I've underestimated the amount of instrumentalism - it's hard for me to
discern how seriously people take their own ideas of 'useful fictions' in
practice.
And I should add my own important caveat. I’m simply not
(Changed title to distinguish it from Natural Propositions thread and to match
my previously renamed posts)
On Oct 1, 2014, at 4:00 AM, John Collier colli...@ukzn.ac.za wrote:
The more contemporary nominalism is based in a view of language and thought
(which is understood on a linguistic
Hi Jon, List,
Instead of embodied in systems, I think, logic is embodied in the biggest possible system, the universe, as a part of its thirdness (structure, continuum). Other aspects of this thirdness, I would say, are natural laws and constants. For subsystems like organisms or social systems,
Supplement: There is a logical fallacy in my text: If the universe has a superstructure (logic), it cannot be the biggest possible system. Ok, so it is not.
Hi Jon, List,
Instead of embodied in systems, I think, logic is embodied in the biggest possible system, the universe, as a part of
Helmut - I'm confused by your comments.
First, a society, as an existential organism, can't operate solely within a
mode of Thirdness because Thirdness, as the laws-of-continuity is a general and
not a specific and thus itself operates only in relation to the modes of
Secondness and Firstness.
Dear Edwina,
passive negation is eg.: I do not think, that A is B. This can be, because I have not made up my mind yet, or, because I am not interested in A and B, or, because I have not understood it, or, because I do not believe either in the well-definedness of the concept of A, or B, or both,
On Oct 1, 2014, at 4:00 AM, John Collier wrote:
I think that it is a given that for any realist position there is a
nominalist position in the contemporary sense that can fit the same
assent structure. Typically one is realist about some things, but
not others (for example one can be a
Gary R, Gary F., lists,
There seemed some inconsistency here, especially because of the date
November 1903 appearing with the subindex quote, but date is for the
start of the lecture series and isn't date of the MS itself. EP
Headnotes indicate that CP 2.292-4 (including the hyposemes) is
Correction, sorry, the subindex quote was from CP 2.274, but that also
was from MS 478 (the third section of Syllabus) just like the passage
with the Singular Symbol in CP 2.293. - Best Ben
Gary R, Gary F., lists,
There seemed some inconsistency here, especially because of the date
November
Ben, Gary F, lists,
So, putting your posts together, Ben, I think that you're saying that the
*Singular Symbol* is better understood as the Subindex (you earlier
remarked that Peirce didn't stick with the Singular Symbol notion)? Or are
they equivalent terms?
And what do you make of the Abstract
Thread:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14412
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14420
HR:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14421
ET:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14424
Helmut, List,
List:
(N.B. 1: This message contains technical arguments that may be incomprehensible
to non-technical readers.)
(N.B. 2: This message also contains Peircian coinages that may be
incomprehensible to non-Peircian readers.)
The scientific origins of the meaning of the unique CSP-created logic
Thread:
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14286
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14290
GF:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14313
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14350
Hello Jon,
If you have links to the earlier discussions of the distinction between
triadicities and trichotomies, I'd like to take a look. In addition to
being interested in distinction you are making, I'd like to read more about how
you are thinking about the projection of the triadic
Jeff D., Jon,
I'd just like to note that the questions of triads versus trichotomies
is something that we've discussed a number of times at peirce-l over the
years. For my part, I like using those words in the way that Jon and
others have recommended - 'triad' for the triadically related
22 matches
Mail list logo
