Stephen, Jeffrey, Edwina, lists,
(1) In connection with the debate on nominalism vs. realism, it may be of
some interest to consider the Existential Triad of Burgin proposed in [1]
(see the figure below) that seems similar to the triadic models of the
world advocated by Popper and Penrose [2].
On 10/14/15 5:53 PM, sb wrote:
Matt,
ah! This makes things much clearer. And it makes my critique pretty
pointless, because i assumed you (and Margolis?) used a narrow
definition of language.
Stefan,
Venn uses the wider definition, but leaves open any determination
whether lingual sign sys
Matt,
ah! This makes things much clearer. And it makes my critique pretty pointless,
because i assumed you (and Margolis?) used a narrow definition of language.
Nevertheless discussing Peirce realism and Margolis historicism would be very
interesting, because i'm interested in all forms of soc
On 10/14/15 4:01 PM, sb wrote:
Matt,
the example in the Margolis quote is exactly what i doubt.
>snip<
To use Venns metaphor you used: In my opinion there are other sign
systems which can be used as scaffolding.
Stefan, just a side note. Venn described a broader idea of language than
what is
On Oct 14, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
> such as the need for an axiomatic
> framework, or a review of important principles. Interdisciplinary thinking
> requires such openness to ideas, as none of us can be experts on everything.
Yes, the need for openness in thinking broadly is r
On 10/14/15 4:01 PM, sb wrote:
Matt,
the example in the Margolis quote is exactly what i doubt.
Stefan, I'm working on a reply. Although, I'm afraid it might have to be
overly vague. I have a feeling that tendencies to think one way or
another hinge on presuppositions about more fundamental
Perhaps Ben's "whiff of Firstness", to which I'm so perplexed by, is a
key. I don't know. All I can do now is store such ideas away
unprocessed, and see if they click with anything that comes up in my
future readings.
Matt
On 10/14/15 4:35 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Matt - the universe would
Matt - the universe would eventually harden only if it were confined to the
modes of Secondness (individual instances) and Thirdness (general
habits/rules of organization). You are ignoring the reality of Firstness,
which is freedom, spontaneity, diversion.
Edwina
- Original Message -
On 10/6/15 6:10 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
Clearly there is however a relationship between the values at any
given time and the ideal values. Effectively the universe is working
out the ideal values for any given circumstance.
That's the Peircean way of looking at it. Sometimes I see the world tha
Matt,
the example in the Margolis quote is exactly what i doubt.
I can only give you some anecdotal evidence to make my point clear. When i
build my house i watched how the carpenter and his apprentice interacted. They
did not speak. The carpenter just took the tool out of the apprentice' hand
Dear Ben Novak,
On the one hand, in calling attention to surprise and perplexity as the
occasion of abductive inference (as opposed to deductive and inductive
inference), Peirce is talking about a generic necessary condition which
the general character of abduction reflects in being a response
Jeff, as I have stated before on this forum, I am not a Peirce scholar. So I
concur that it is not for me to take issue with the finer narrative where
the ground is well established. However, there are important issues being
raised that go beyond the finer detail, and these should be considered
wit
Edwina, I can only concur with the conclusion that you made in your previous
email, namely, "I guess we'll have to continue to disagree!"
What can be said to be innate (insofar as we can agree on what 'innate'
precisely means), or even, to approach objectivity, relate to
semiotic/biosemiotics prin
It seems to me that Nominalism and Peirce are mutually exclusive. As he is
at some pains to state. Some things are real and universal.
§1. NOMINALISM †1
15. Very early in my studies of logic, before I had really been
devoting myself to it more than four or five years, it became qui
Stephen, List,
You draw the conclusions: Nothing is innate. Experience/knowing can only ever
be subjective.
My suggestion was that, until we have understood how Peirce is using the
conception of the innate (or how Plato, or Descartes are using the conception,
for that matter), then we are jus
On Oct 14, 2015, at 2:57 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote:
> Conclusion? Nothing is innate.
innate |iˈnāt|
adjective
inborn; natural: her innate capacity for organization.
ORIGIN late Middle English: from Latin innatus, past participle of innasci,
fromin- ‘into’ + nasci ‘be born.’
Cheers
jerry
Stephen J - I disagree. The reality of space and time are innate to matter;
the fact that a cell has a wall defines its existence in space; the fact
that a cell has a birth and death defines it existence in time. Now, the
effect of the weight of that matter depends on mass (the amount of matter)
... and just to confuse things, maybe some creatures don't even attribute
meaning to space. Plants grow into space, but, from what we can ascertain,
they never make choices from it. So what does this imply about the "meaning"
that a plant might attribute to the empty space that it grows into?
http:
Jeff, one of the surprises that I have come to in my own thinking in recent
years, within the context of neuroplastic "wiring" commencing early in the
embryo's development, is the realization that not even space or time are
"innate."
Infants begin learning about space by reaching into it and crawl
19 matches
Mail list logo
