-- Forwarded message --
From: Sungchul Ji
Date: Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 6:47 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Universe as a Self-Organizing Musical
Instrument (USOMI)
To: John Collier
John, Jerry, lists,
(1) John asked, "Isn’t this just a straightforward consequence of Fourier
anal
Helmut,
I'm not familiar with those volumes, and when looking around I was unable
to locate an English equivalent by Kloesel. Yes, I agree, the Collected
Papers are expensive; I was fortunate to get them from Intelex before they
stopped selling them to individuals. There is also a copy of the CP g
Jerry,
I am referencing the diagrams that Jeff attached to his last post, under
the subject thread "Vol. 2 of CP, On Induction" and never meant to be
saying anything theoretical about diagrams in general..
-- Franklin
On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Jerry L
Franklin:
On Nov 14, 2015, at 2:55 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote:
> I understand that the diagrams are an attempt to show how rhemes are
> incorporated into dicents, and then how dicents are incorporated into
> arguments, and thus to show that just as a rheme can be nested in a dicent by
> the f
Jeff,
Again, just to note in case you didn't see my other post, I thought it
better to move discussion to a more appropriately titled thread, in case
you are interested in responding.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:56 PM, Franklin Ransom <
pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> List,
>
> I think it w
List, John:
On Nov 14, 2015, at 12:54 PM, John Collier wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> It is fairly obvious that we disagree about ontological commitment.
Yes.
JLRC
> When I talk of “its” I am talking about existents, not merely realities.
> Likewise, when I talk of “bits”, which I take to be grounde
Jeff, list,
I changed the subject. I hope that is not objectionable, in the case that
any reply is made to what I have to say.
After looking at the two attachments more carefully, I have some comments.
I would, however, like to emphasize that I have not been thinking much
about this subject for a
Franklin,
thank you very much for yor friendly attention!
The three volumes are called: "Semiotische Schriften" (Semiotical Writings), Koesel / Pape, Suhrkamp 2000, and contain writings and lectures by Peirce. I think, they exist in English too, but in the English edition, Pape does not belong
Jerry,
It is fairly obvious that we disagree about ontological commitment. When I talk
of "its" I am talking about existents, not merely realities. Likewise, when I
talk of "bits", which I take to be grounded in existent distinctions. So I
don't know what it would mean to in addition to explai
Helmut,
I'm not aware of the three volumes of Pape or what they contain. Looking it
up just now, I see it seems to all be in German? So it's hard for me to
gauge the work. Are these translations of Peirce's papers, or is it
original work by Pape that discusses CSP's philosophy, or both?
I am not
List, John, Sung:
Gentle responses inserted. :-)
On Nov 14, 2015, at 4:49 AM, John Collier wrote:
> Jerry,
>
> Isn’t this just a straightforward consequence of Fourier analysis?
Of course, yes. My first sentence is merely a factual statement.
> Are you implying that Fourier analysis has
Franklin,
I have read the three volumes by Pape, and read a lot in the commens dictionary, and secondary literature, but I agree, that I should read more before taking part here in the future. Just now, to what I have meant by this second kind of dynamical object: It is the sign class, which the
Jerry,
Isn't this just a straightforward consequence of Fourier analysis? Are you
implying that Fourier analysis has no scientific value (it is tautological, so
no additional information content - so no additional empirical content), or do
you mean to imply some other value with your use of "sc
13 matches
Mail list logo
