Mike, List,
Thanks for the 'teaser'. I look forward to your publishing your knowledge
ontology based on Peirce's triadic (three category) logic next week.
[Note:to those on the list unfamiliar with knowledge representation (KR)
terminology, 'ontology' has a somewhat--although not wholly
unrelated
List -
Next week we will be announcing a venture that has a
knowledge graph at its core. This knowledge graph, or ontology,
is based on our attempt to follow the logic of Peirce's Three
Categories as we understand them. I have posted a blog article
as
Thanks Jon,
No experience in the Beautiful...
Best,
Jerry R
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 8:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> Jerry R., List:
>
> JR: I gather from this remark that you are still more interested in being
> proved correct than whether the argument is to be decided for its own sake.
>
Jerry R., List:
JR: I gather from this remark that you are still more interested in being
proved correct than whether the argument is to be decided for its own sake.
On what basis do you "gather" that? How does any argument get "decided for
its own sake"?
JR: That is, how many times and in h
Dear list:
Stephen:
I see you. I recognize you. I hear your complaint.
Jon:
You said:
As was clear from the context of that remark, I was referring specifically
to the dispute between Edwina and me. Rather than taking her word or mine
for it, everyone should read Peirce for themselv
Jerry R., List:
As was clear from the context of that remark, I was referring specifically
to the dispute between Edwina and me. Rather than taking her word or mine
for it, everyone should read Peirce for themselves and draw their own
conclusions about whether her posts reflect a valid interpreta
Thanks for various things I won't itemize -- I merely want to suggest that
we might well agree that Peirce was not a candidate for the Goethe quote
and neither is anyone here, I assume. But that does not mean that his
significance has been adequately or completely understood. Nor that we are
going
Dear list:
Jon, you said,
"At least we agree that everyone should read Peirce for themselves and draw
their own conclusions."
This is NOT what is meant by Peircean intention. You have no farther than
to look into his disagreement with James to know this. In fact, this is of
such a problematic n
Stephen, List:
Just so you know, I do read your posts and appreciate your (and others')
participation; but my usual practice is only to reply when I have something
to say. In other words, my lack of comments reflects a sense that I have
nothing worthwhile to add, rather than that a judgment that
Edwina, List:
At least we agree that everyone should read Peirce for themselves and draw
their own conclusions. Again, I gladly submit everything that I have said
to the judgment of the List participants.
Regards,
Jon
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> Jon - please don
Thanks Edwina.
I was referring to a few voices that meant a lot to me a few years back.
But I do think, having moderated things early on, before and then on the
nascent Web, that it is a labor of considerable love to maintain a forum
continuously. Things ebb and flow. Obviously contention among a
List,
I am currently on a wellness retreat with both an inadequate computer and
unstable internet connectivity, so I won't now try to offer more than the
suggestion that those on the list who feel that the subject of this message
might pertain to them or be of interest to them are encouraged to re
Stephen - please don't take it personally if I don't acknowledge your posts - I
don't get involved in quite a few of the debates on this list - eg, the recent
long debate on the three modes of thought [abduction, deduction, induction] -
as my area of interest is in the triadic Sign and the three
You guys make my life easy by never acknowledging my posts period. I
suppose I should complain but I merely assume that the posts are seen as
lightweight and out of school. That was not so when there were some heavy
Peirce experts here who are no longer here apparently.
Books http://buff.ly/15Gfdq
Jon - please don't be patronizing. Please don't act 'all superior to' me and
tell me kindly how pleased you are that I am using Peirce's framework 'far
beyond what he wrote'.
I do not agree that my outlines and use of Peircean semiosis are 'different
from Peirce's'. I do not accept YOUR opini
Edwina, List:
One last time (I hope)--I am not asserting that my interpretation of Peirce
is the only valid one, or that my analysis of Peirce is the only correct
one. I am merely pointing out that your analytic framework is (in certain
respects) different from Peirce's, which is an objective fac
Dear list:
What I find comedic and tragic about this whole situation is that while
claiming truth about interpreting Peirce, you continue to ignore the ground
that is put in front of us.
How many different ways are there of interpreting CP 5.189, the logic of
abduction? There is your exactn
Gary, list: I disagree with you that Peirce was exact in his use of terms,
and frankly, his work is so complex that it is open to analysis and
interpretation. If it were not open to analysis and interpretation - then,
there would be no possibility of debate or discussion. We could simply recit
Jon, list - First - I am not dictating to this forum. I am asking YOU, I
repeat, YOU, to stop asserting that YOUR interpretation of Peirce is the only
valid one.
1) I disagree with your assertion - which is JUST an interpretation - that
Firstness and Thirdness are 'real' apart from their embod
Edwina, List:
I reject your attempt to dictate the ground rules of this forum. A truly
scientific approach to philosophy involves every member of the community
having the ability to exercise the freedom to challenge each other,
although obviously this should always be done politely, respectfully,
Edwina (and list),
I agree with your opinion that the focus of this list should be on the
interpretation and analysis of Peirce and the use of his analytic framework for
scientific or philosophical purposes. I think everyone in agreement with this
should therefore refrain from presenting the
Jon, List - No, you continue to misunderstand. You declare that my analytic
framework is 'not identical' to that of Peirce. You have absolutely no right to
say that, since, as I have said to you before, you are not the Master-Guru of
Peirce. All you can say, with any validity, is that YOUR inter
Edwina, List:
I did not inquire about or ask you to tell me anything in my last message,
and will not inquire about or ask you to tell me anything in this one. I
am not interested in your personal beliefs, either. I just want to
distinguish your analytic framework from Peirce's, since they are n
Jon, list - you still don't seem to understand. My personal beliefs are
completely irrelevant to my interpretation and analysis of Peirce. That is, my
interpretations and analysis can be a completely accurate outline of Peircean
thought - even if my own beliefs are different. [I am not saying th
Edwina, List:
I am not sure exactly what you mean by "inquisitory," but I apologize for
evidently causing you discomfort. I did not intend to pry into your
personal beliefs, which are indeed none of my business. I honestly thought
that my question was innocuous--that since you already character
Mike, Jon, list: I agree with Mike. The tone and indeed question of Jon's is,
in my view, inquisitory and out-of-line. This is a blog devoted to
Peirce-L...and not Edwina-L. Therefore my personal beliefs are totally
irrelevant and frankly, none of Jon's business.
Since I am also claiming that
26 matches
Mail list logo
