Stephen, if you change the definitions (I specifically used the Catholic case),
then you can say whatever you want. I have no idea what you are talking about
with square circles. I had a sculpturist student once who thought he could
square the circle. Under the usual assumptions of what this
A square circle is real in many possible ways. Evil is not absence it is
tangible harm mental or physical and its ethical status depends on whether
it is consciously intended. Evil does ultimately vanish as we conscious
sorts over time leech it out of ourselves either here or beyond if there is
a
Everything is real including unreality, fiction, laundry bags, ideas,
muses, thoughts, coughs. There is nothing that is not real. At some point
maybe I will go through Peirce and see if I can find the premises that back
this up. Of course I will find his binary use of the term but I cannot
believe
Hi Jon,
Not to carry this thread beyond some useful threshold, see below:
On 2/10/2017 7:18 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
Mike, List:
I suspect that the questions of whether all generals are
real and whether the
Jon S, Mike, List,
Before trying to address metaphysical questions, why not start with some
semiotic questions. Let's start with two simple conceptions:
1. Quarter Horse
2. Unicorn
What sorts of answers seem to follow if we consider the different kinds of
relations that hold between objects,
Jerry,
You always seem to bring this up at the most inconvenient moments. Last time I
was in the throes of a fever 裸 and could make only a cryptic remark about the
Sisyphean mountain of inquiry that Peirce mapped. And now I'm stuck at ⭐️歷歷
waiting for a text ⚡️⚡️⚡️
Later that night ⚡️⚡️⚡️
The
On “'Whether such a thing as metaphysics be at all possible?'
It seems almost ridiculous, while every other science is continually
advancing, that in this, which pretends to be Wisdom incarnate, for whose
oracle everyone inquires, we should constantly move round the same spot,
without gaining a
Thread:
JAS:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-02/msg00094.html
JA:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-02/msg00098.html
JFS:https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-02/msg00100.html
JA:
As far as "predicate" and "proposition" go, usage varies promiscuously.
Some
John, List:
JFS: The third row (predicate, proposition, argument) is the *formal*
triad. A predicate is a symbol of some relation. A proposition is a
symbol that asserts the relation.
But the third row does not apply only to symbols. What do we call an icon
or index that Peirce further
Jon,
As far as "predicate" and "proposition" go, usage varies promiscuously.
Some people use them to mean syntactic elements, in the S & I domains.
Some people use them to mean objective elements, in the Object domain.
In a sign relational setting we need to admit both types of elements
and we
I have my doubts about that - i.e., that the 'binary would turn deism itself
into a binary, while the triadic form ..clears the space..
The explosion of nominalism in the 13th c was a binaristic rejection of
triadism, with the 'mediation force' defined by the Church as an essentialist a
priori
John, List:
JFS: For teaching Peirce's semiotic, I therefore recommend that those five
words should be replaced with terms that CSP himself used:
mark, token, type;
icon, index, symbol;
predicate, proposition, argument.
I have no problem with mark/token/type, but "predicate" and
Which makes it more imperative than ever that a way be found to make the
triadic mode more understandable and to say why it is infinitely superior
to binary thinking. Without it we perish. This is NOT an academic matter.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Edwina
I don't find that it's the terms that slow down the use of Peirce in
analysis; I find that it's the concept of a triadic semiosis with that vital
mediation, and the concept of the three modal categories. Both seem very
hard for people to grasp - and so, semiotics is reduced to the simplistic
A distinction between real and anything is to me a binary notion which may
be useful but is ultimately confusing. To say that everything is real is to
say that reality is the whole kahuna of everything within which there is
good and evil, falsity and truth, and so forth. I know that Peirce makes
15 matches
Mail list logo
