Peircers,
I went looking for the mentioned exchange between
Jean-Marc Orliaguet and Kirsti Määttänen and have
not found it yet, but I did run across an archive
of canonical selections from Peirce and previous
discussions on Sign Relations that may be of use.
It looks like I left off prettifying t
List, Kirsti, Ben:
I am a bit puzzled by these responses, which appear strange to my way of
thinking.
By the standards of some, I am not a “Peircer”.
My aim is bio-medical reserch on specific quantitative issues; the writings of
CSP are studied in order to contribute to my understanding of t
Ben, Gary, Jerry, Kirst, List ...
I had one of those Deja Vu Groundhog Day impressions that
we had discussed this question of triadic vs. trichotomic
way back at the turn of the millennium, but many searches
under those keywords failed to turn up the relevant texts
until I remembered to search un
> On Feb 2, 2017, at 2:08 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> I had one of those Deja Vu Groundhog Day impressions that
> we had discussed this question of triadic vs. trichotomic
> way back at the turn of the millennium, but many searches
I think this *might* be the email you were thinking of. It’s from
These seem two other relevant posts from Jean-Marc.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jean-Marc Orliaguet
Subject: [peirce-l] First, second, third, etc.
Date: June 25, 2006 at 2:19:19 AM MDT
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Reply-To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Here is an article that I scanned so
Peirce Listers,
Here is that fragment I mentioned.
In case it gets garbled in transit
I've placed a copy on InterSciWiki:
http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/User:Jon_Awbrey/Inquiry_Into_Isms
Regards,
Jon
o~o~o~o~o~o~o
Inquiry Into Isms -
Dear list:
JM wrote,
“…basically take one thing (A), take another thing (B) and you have a first
(A) and a second (B), the firstness and the secondness here mean nothing
more than "A is such as it is" and "B is other than A", in the context of
the relation that is being considered.
however w
Gary, Kirsti, list,
You wrote, "I've been a little "out of it" post surgery, but did someone
earlier quote that passage? In any event, I can't find it in this thread."
I was referring to a post by Orliaguet from many years ago, but nobody
else quoted it in the thread. I tried a few years ago
Thanks for searching, Jon. I finally found it, it was between Orliaguet
& Inna Semetsky, not & Kirsti. My bad. See the message that I just sent
to peirce-l - Best, Ben
On 2/2/2017 10:56 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Peircers,
I went looking for the mentioned exchange between
Jean-Marc Orliaguet and K
And here's a Lyris peirce-l archive search that finds 23 results for
Orliaguet triad trichotomy
http://lyris.ttu.edu/read//vtable.tml?f=search::results&d=read/search&secx=1118ef1a&nsn=searchresultsviewtable&max=20&min=&rawresults=0&forum=peirce-l&words=orliaguet+triad+trichotomy&in=3&any=0&exclud
Ben, List:
> On Feb 2, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
>
> It contains (in terms of the three-trichotomy system, and borrowing the
> italicized terms from Liszka):
> 1. the second division from the _presentative_ trichotomy (sign's relation to
> itself),
> 2. the second division fro
John, List:
> On Jan 31, 2017, at 1:05 AM, John Collier wrote:
>
> 2. Now, for the most important comment. It is almost certain that CSP’s
> notion of abduction as a method to generate a possibility space came directly
> from the concept of proof of structure. It follows from his notion
John, List:
> On Jan 31, 2017, at 1:05 AM, John Collier wrote:
>
> 5. The assertion "Empiricists typically claim that we don't need anything
> more to do science.” appears rather problematic to me.
>
> I don’t see this, Jerry. A typical example of a contemporary empiricist who
> argues spec
Jerry,
CSP did use divisions into three, so trichotomies do belong to his
philosophy. Only in his latest phase he devoted himself to developing
triadicity as his key concept in his theory of the Categories.
So, trichotomies of signs, such as icon, index, symbol etc. are OK. But
only for the
14 matches
Mail list logo
