Jon, Edwina, List,
you wrote: (...) normative science (...) seeks knowledge regarding the relative values of its objects, (...), and these objects are signs. Truth is mostly seen as a digital value (either yes or no, with no gradient in between). Peirce too sees it like that, I think, in his
Dear Jeff, Gary, lists -
Sorry for being absent from the discussion - I fell ill during traveling in
Germany but am now back on the horse.
Jeff, it is certainly an interesting and important idea to compare Peirce's
mature doctrine of the Dicisign from the years after the turn of the century
Dear Clark, lists -
Mathematics certainly deals in propositions according to P.
P's general philosophy of math claims that math is about forms of relations,
and that those abstract objects are addressed by the help of diagrams.
Existing, particular, physical diagram tokens permit the access to
Dear Clark, lists,
Den 25/09/2014 kl. 19.22 skrev Clark Goble
cl...@lextek.commailto:cl...@lextek.com:
On Sep 25, 2014, at 8:50 AM, Frederik Stjernfelt
stj...@hum.ku.dkmailto:stj...@hum.ku.dk wrote:
This isn’t to say Heidegger and Peirce are the same. Just that I think the move
towards an
Dear Cathy, lists
Good point
F
Den 29/09/2014 kl. 02.37 skrev Catherine Legg
cl...@waikato.ac.nzmailto:cl...@waikato.ac.nz:
Dear All,
Yes, just to reiterate what has also been said by Jeff D in his post in this
thread – the key criterion for thought, and intelligent thought, is not
Dear Jon, lists
Peirce use the concept degenerate in his sign theory in analogy to the
geometric sense of the term.. Referring to conic sections, certain sections are
generic (hyperbolas, ellipses) while other sections are degenerate because
corresponding to non-generic cases where one or more
Just a bibliographic note here: I think that all references to or quotations
from the Syllabus should just give the EP2 page number, unless it’s a reference
to the “Nomenclature and Divisions of Dyadic Relations” (CP 3.571ff.). Except
for that part, the Syllabus is complete and together in EP2,
Gary R., Gary F., lists,
A little more on what happened to the abstract and singular symbols.
The singular symbol / the subindex designates, names, or says 'this' or
'that', etc. Earlier Peirce had accounted those functions as indexical.
In 1885 he said that demonstrative and relative
Peircers,
Another passage from ''Natural Propositions'' that appeared to light up before
my mind's eye — I'm guessing because of all the time I whiled away wrestling
with divergent views of assertion when I first began studying the history of
logic — is this selection from Chapter 3.
quote
Ben, lists,
Thanks for this excellent work, even if I'm left with the same question you
had concerning the fate of the singular symbol.
I'm about to be traveling again--btw, I understand Frederik is as well from
an off-list email message today saying he's traveling to Paris to give an
A question to better understand what dicisign is. Can one say that Gun
Country by Michael Murphy is a dicisign?
http://www.artprize.org/michael-murphy/2014/gun-country
Best wishes,
Evgenii
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or Reply All to REPLY ON
Evgenii, lists,
I would say that 'Gun Country' is a dicisign.
Although I've haven't delved into it deeply, in Tony Jappy's book,*
Introduction to Peircean Visual Semiotics, *one finds a test Peirce gives
of what may count as a dicisign as a footnote in chapter 6, one of the
places in the book
Gary,
You are free
to interpret
it diversely.
It possesses
no owntology.
Jon
Gary Richmond wrote:
Jon, Evgenii, lists,
Well, Jon, if what you say is true, now that I've looked at the video of
Gun Country--which I hadn't earlier (only the still shots)--I've decided
that, given the context
Jon,
So a qualisign
could be a dicisign
call an icon an index
and that too is fine
and whatever whomever
happens to opine
is OK just for tryin'
as good an interpretation as yours or mine
(or his or hers)?
Best,
Gary
(Jon, please, I'll give you the last ditty, and we can move on to more
serious
I think I'm going to call this the Last Word Forum.
*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Gary Richmond gary.richm...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jon,
So a qualisign
could be a dicisign
call an icon an index
and that too is fine
and whatever whomever
On Oct 2, 2014, at 4:59 AM, Frederik Stjernfelt stj...@hum.ku.dk wrote:
Mathematics certainly deals in propositions according to P.
P's general philosophy of math claims that math is about forms of relations,
and that those abstract objects are addressed by the help of diagrams.
On Oct 1, 2014, at 3:00 PM, Howard Pattee hpat...@roadrunner.com wrote:
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
I would say, it is not an argument, because there is no because or therefore in its message (no syllogism), but only a statement of combination. In the sign relaition it is a combination of the outer shape, the shapes of the elements, and the dispersion oft he elements in the outer shape. So the
I forgot to add the obvious linguistic translation of this dicisign:
Guns R US. (By the way, I'd also say that the work is a proposition,
as it is clearly symbolic, even without the verbal description or the
title.)
gary f.
-Original Message-
From: Gary Fuhrman
Am I wrong in recalling that Derrida actually spent some time going through
unpublished Peirce mss in Cambridge. Or am I thinking of someone else of
more than passing fame?
*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on Reply List or
On Oct 2, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote:
Am I wrong in recalling that Derrida actually spent some time going through
unpublished Peirce mss in Cambridge. Or am I thinking of someone else of more
than passing fame?
I’ve never heard that. Sure you aren’t
Supplement: Please replace in my text dicisign with sinsign, and dicent with dicisign. I only knew the word dicent for dicisign, and thought, that dicisign was a synonym for sinsign, because of the ending sign.
I would say, it is not an argument, because there is no because or therefore in
On Oct 2, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope. Not Whitehead I'm pretty sure. But if no one else has heard it. I
associate it with some post-modern sort but I am drawing a blank. I know it
was someone though.
I was curious and did a bit of search. You were
Exactly what I remembered. But lost in the mist. Thank you!
*@stephencrose https://twitter.com/stephencrose*
On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:28 PM, Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com wrote:
On Oct 2, 2014, at 6:47 PM, Stephen C. Rose stever...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope. Not Whitehead I'm pretty sure. But
On Oct 2, 2014, at 8:28 PM, Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com wrote:
It’s ten years later that he writes about Derrida and the symbol in On
Grammatologie.
Whoops. An other typo - my apologies. Doing this quickly as I do some work.
Obviously I meant Peirce there, not Derrida.
I should have
25 matches
Mail list logo
