On 1/25/2017 10:42 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
On 1/25/2017 10:28 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
Sorry for the rant and if I am alone in my reaction...
You're not along in that reaction.
Sorry for the typo. I meant 'alone'.
John
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply L
On 1/25/2017 10:28 PM, Stephen C. Rose wrote:
Sorry for the rant and if I am alone in my reaction...
You're not along in that reaction.
John
-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go
Peirce was more than a pingpong ball in a long and repetitive exegetical
battle involving I suppose the core group of this forum. But I have had
enough. I simply will not open mail from the correspondents until
something that is not a bnary ether-or argument that dwells on "what Peirce
thinks" as
Clark, List:
CG: I think the big break between Peirce and the nominalists is because a
general can’t be limited to any collection of actual entities.
I strongly agree with this, and just came across an interesting passage
that seems to confirm it--and also corroborates my comment to Edwina this
Edwina, List:
ET: And no, to describe your outline as mechanical, reductionist, is
hardly perjorative.
In the context of a Peirce list, those labels--as well as the others that
you used--are *definitely *pejorative.
ET: The DO doesn't exist as a DO until and unless it functions as such
within
Jon- one last time. And no, to describe your outline as mechanical,
reductionist, is hardly perjorative.
There is no such thing as a Dynamic Object 'itself'; no such thing as a
Representamen 'itself'; no such thing as an Interpretant 'itself'. Each
'exists' as such, in that role, only within t
“One important key to Dr. Carus’s opinions is the recognition of the fact
that, like many other philosophers, he is a nominalist tinctured with
realistic opinions.” ~Peirce
“I look upon Mr. Peirce as an extreme nominalist, or, if he prefers it, as
a nominal realist soaked with nominalistic opini
Edwina, List:
We each call it as we see it, but you routinely toss off pejorative
labels---i.e., engage in name-calling--while I try to make a good-faith
effort to identify and address the substance of our differences.
You think that my approach to semeiotic is somehow "reductionist,"
"mechanical
Jon- again, you misunderstand me. I do NOT talk about 'entities' but about
Relations.
My view is that nothing exists 'per se' isolate from other 'things'; everything
is interactive, even a grain of sand. That grain of sand is both a Dynamic
Object, and Immediate Object, carries within it the ha
Edwina, List:
"Reductionist," "mechanical," "individual," "nominalist," and "isolate" are
all *your *pejorative labels for my views, and I am not convinced that they
are accurate. I see the primary difference between us as triadic *relations
*(my view) vs. triadic *entities* (your view). Somethi
Jon - I think this debate won't go far, as it's not really a debate but two
opposing views.
I have never endorsed YOUR model of semiosis, which to me, is reductionist and
mechanical and sees everything as individual units [which is why I see you as
nominalist] and ignores the necessarily interr
Edwina, List:
I agree that we should not rehash our past debates; I am simply offering my
own alternative views.
I have never endorsed your model of semiosis, with its emphasis on data
input/output, because my personal opinion is that it is not authentically
Peircean. In particular, I have consi
Jon - I have told myself that I wouldn't enter into debates with you but will
make one try. You are missing the point of semiosis which is that there is no
such thing as a singular 'point' or node that exists all by itself; Peircean
semiosis and therefore reality is triadic. There are three node
13 matches
Mail list logo
