smh...hopeless...
:)
J
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
>
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Gary Richmond > wrote:
>
> One interesting think in Parker’s book is the cosmological element in the
> development of the categories.
>
>
> Whoops. One interesting *thing*… LOL. Sorry
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
>
> One interesting think in Parker’s book is the cosmological element in the
> development of the categories.
Whoops. One interesting thing… LOL. Sorry for all the typos. I wrote that
quickly. Hopefully I don’t make an embarrassing mistake
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:45 PM, Jerry LR Chandler
> wrote:
>
> Thank you for your insights, they were helpful.
>
> As for the “copula" as “being”, in my view, this is remote from the roots of
> the word and its usage as a verb.
> "Man marries women.” Man and women copulate.
>
> It is also rem
(Hope you don’t mind — since this is primarily related to the copula I put it
under the other thread)
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
>
> In your response, there's no mention of the object that is outside of us, and
> in my opinion, no respect for what that object can teach us
Clark, list:
Here is a nice presentation by Burger that melts into our current problem
with no mention of Peirce:
cf., starting at 5:22 and on...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GWaM__oRlA
Best,
Jerry R
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
> Clark, list:
>
> In your response,
Clark, list:
In your response, there's no mention of the object that is outside of us,
and in my opinion, no respect for what that object can teach us.
We point but we point at an object. Moreover, we argue over what is
involved in that object, which is outside us. The goal is to come to a
comp
> On Jun 21, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote:
>
> You said, "If I understand Peirce, then the logic of indices works via icons."
>
> What, then, distinguishes indices from icons in a context for logic of
> indices?
> ___
>
> Does, then, a logic of icons work via indices? The question
I hope you don’t mind if I open up a tangent from those last posts of mine.
I’ve long thought the question of being to be a fundamental one in philosophy.
It’s interesting to me seeing Peirce’s use of being (aka the copula) in various
texts. I think Kelly Parker’s book actually does grapple with
Clark, list:
You said, "If I understand Peirce, then the logic of indices works via
icons."
What, then, distinguishes indices from icons in a context for logic of
indices?
___
Does, then, a logic of icons work via indices? The question naturally
follows, what distinguishes icons from indice
> On Jun 13, 2016, at 11:27 AM, Jerry LR Chandler
> wrote:
>
> The recent mention by Clark of Parker’s book, “Continuity…”
> re-opens the question of how Parker categorized CSP’s writings.
>
> Of particular interest is Parker’s division of the three periods of meanings:
> Fig. 6.2: 1865-1885
10 matches
Mail list logo
