List:
> On Mar 24, 2018, at 9:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:
>
> 1905 | Letters to Mario Calderoni | MS [R] L67:32-33
> …that Secundanity which consists in one man’s having a stature of 6 feet and
> another man’s having a stature of 5 feet is a degenerate Secundanity, since
> each would be ju
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John Sowa, list:
Thanks for your post - excellent. You wrote:
"As a suggestion, I would say that both Jon and Edwina are pursuing
directions that were inspired by, but different from Peirce's.
They could ci
Gary R, Jon AS, and Edwina,
JFS: My only point is that if any of those definitions are precise, then
they cannot be the same as the hazy notion that Peirce was trying to define.
If so, Peirce's ethics of terminology implies they should not use Peirce's
term -- they should choose a different word
Heh - Jerry, my aims are not personal in the sense of confined to
myself but are 'understanding the writings of Peirce' -
pragmatically.
In other words - their pragmatic application. In my case, I'm
interested in the application of Peircean analysis in biosemiotics.
That obviou
Jon:
> On Mar 24, 2018, at 11:31 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt
> wrote:
>
> As I said before, our projects are different because our aims are different.
Can you explain your “aims”?
Since it may not be obvious, this member of this board has the aim of
understanding the writings of C S P.
I wonder ho
Edwina, List:
What I mean by "constructive" is feedback that is intended to assist me in
my inquiry *on its own terms*, rather than just express disagreement
because what I am proposing is different from one's own well-established
views. I believe that I am no more "defensive" in advocating my cl
I take it you agree with Pierce in this instance. I made what I think is a
substantive point and was thankful for being prompted for saying it. I am
now to conclude that the point I made which has massive implications for
philosophy is to be subordinated to what you suggest are nuances to subtle
to
I do not regard tolerance, helpfulness, democracy, freedom. love and
justice as matters of "sentiment" any more than I regard Wittgensteins
notion of such talk as unspeakable or nonsensical. I was drawn to Peirce
precisely because he opened for me a way of seeing that looking at matters
as sentimen
Stephen, list,
You wrote: "Triadic philosophy asks how what we are considering is
tolerant, helpful and democratic. It considers how it relates to freedom.
love and justice."
I understand that *your* triadic philosophy--quite different from Peirce's
by your own admission even in terms of your bas
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jon, list:
1] Just a first quibble - you say that you wish to receive only
'constructive' criticism. But 'constructive' is a subjective term;
what you find constructive vs unwelcome - is strictly within your own
o
I don't post that often. I study as best I can and when I react it is
mainly to Peirce himself. I do not lack interest in Peirce or boast about
such. I do not express or feel contempt for anyone. I certainly do not see
“triadic philosophy” as meriting more interest, care or attention than
Peirce. I
Stephen, you’ve already and repeatedly expressed your lack of interest in a
careful study of Peirce’s philosophy and semiotics. What I don’t understand is
why you feel compelled to remind the Peirce list of your lack of interest in
Peirce, and even to boast about it, while expressing contempt fo
Edwina, List:
I appreciate the distinction that you make between our different projects,
but I think that you are overestimating the ambition of mine. I am well
aware of the difference between complicated and complex, as well as the
difference between complex and complex-adaptive. I fully recogn
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}The way I explain it, to myself, is:
Pure or Genuine Secondness [2-2] is an interaction [Relation] of
direct physical bruteness. A baseball bat hitting the ball. Period.
Strictly an external observation.
Not worth getting into a long to do about. If understanding Peirce wins
brownie points count me out. I will ever know as much as the next. After
reading this I feel just as I did when I made the initial comment. If that
clouds my real understanding of Peirce so be it.
amazon.com/author/stephenrose
List,
Apparently some on the list find Peirce's distinction between the genuine
and the degenerate inconvenient. But it's not that elusive for those who
really want to know what Peirce is talking about. You could, for instance,
consult the index of EP2, or the Commens Dictionary:
1903 | CSP
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Stephen, Gary R, list
Stephen, thanks for your post. Yes, bogus is a strong term but Gary
R has a point - so, I'll try to explain.
1]My analysis of the Sign as a WFF [well-formed formula] is not a
model o
Peircers,
The following reply to a query in the Laws Of Form Group
is more of a promissory note, but it did help to organize
my thoughts on what I need to write eventually better than
anything I've managed to write before so I thought it would
be useful to reissue the note here.
Theme One Progra
Bogus is a strong term. I think Edwina is suggesting that we observe the
pragmatic maxim. What is the practical effect or substance of a
consideration? What is the whole of the matter? What is the end of this
particular effort to parse a particular sign? Triadic philosophy asks how
what we are co
19 matches
Mail list logo
