RE: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic

Jerry C, Your post addressed to me is puzzling. I’m not aware of any major shift in my view of Peirce, or any shift with respect to the role of mathematics in his work. And I don’t see that his theory of the composition of concepts has anything to do with musical composition. Nor do I get your

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce .. and its importance

I am more beyond theology and the notion that any of this can be discussed in past terms. My own sense is that we live in a semiotic sea whose signs are the information that we are all involved in sending out just by thinking. I think Peirce saw this and in fact made it at least possible to infer.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic

Jon, list, Today I’d like to get back to your post of 31 March and follow up on some of your comments in your reply to a prior post of mine — just to check my impression that we’re singing the same song, as it were, in this thread: GF (earlier): The upshot of this, if I understand it, is th

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce .. and its importance

I cleaned this up a bit. inity/ … amazon.com/author/stephenrose On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 8:07 AM Stephen Curtiss Rose wrote: > I am more beyond theology and the notion that any of this can be discussed > in past terms. My own sense is that we live in a semiotic sea whos

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy and logic

Gary F., List: For me, that little living mouse is the residue of indeterminacy possessed by every Sign, as well as by every Object of a Sign. Applied to a Seme, it is why a definition can only serve as an Immediate Interpretant that corresponds to an Immediate Object--a finite and somewhat arbit

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatics and Peirce

Jon, list,   thank you for explaining, e.g. of the ten divisions of signs! They contain correlates with single names, and relations too. About "relation" I think, that to observe a relation it takes objectivity. But objectivity is sometimes hard to achieve. For example, there is a man who decid

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatics and Peirce

Helmut, List: Again, I prefer to stick with Peirce on all of this. - A *logical *relation is *not *subjective, like *social *relationships are; it is simply "a fact about a number of things" (CP 3.416; 1892). - There is no "SOI triad," but a *triadic relation* between the Sign, Object

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatics and Peirce

Jon, list,   I also try to stick with Peirce. Contradictions I dont see:   1.: I dont think that social is not logical, and subjectivity versus objectivity I see not as modes of being, but of chosen point of view.   2.: With triad I have meant triadic relation, and did not claim any identity

Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatics and Peirce

    supp.: Quote from Jon Awbrey´s Inquiry to inquiry: "As mathematical traps go, this one is hydra-headed. I don’t know if it’s possible to put a prior restraint on the varieties of relational reduction that might be considered, but usually we are talking about either one of two types of reduc

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatics and Peirce

Helmut: Thanks for clarifying. Regarding #1, any two actualities *objectively *have a relation. CSP: In the metaphysical sense, *existence *is that mode of being which consists in the resultant genuine dyadic relation of a strict individual with all the other such individuals of the same univer