John, List:
JFS: That is important. Do you have a citation?
The work is still in preparation for publication, so I am not yet at
liberty to cite it. I was working from memory earlier, and reviewing it
now, it does not actually explain the basis for the revised dating to
1911. The timing of t
Jon,
That is important. Do you have a citation?
JAS
I recently came across some research suggesting that the manuscript
pages for Peirce's "tutorial" on EGs were misfiled with R 514, and
do not actually date to 1909; rather, he likely wrote the material
either shortly before or at the same tim
John, List:
I did not say anything (yet) about continuous *predicates*; I referred to
Peirce's direct analogy between continuous *motion* and *semeiosis *vs.
discrete *positions/instants* and definite *Propositions*. It seems safe
to assume that what he had in mind for "stereoscopic moving pictur
On 5/2/2019 11:09 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
I intend to explore further the analogy that he drew between this
and continuous semeiosis vs. definite Propositions, which amount to
instantaneous snapshots of Arguments as captured by EGs on a Sheet
of Assertion.
The continuous predicates have n
Jeff, Stephen R., List:
For the record, I was not *bemoaning *Peirce's unawareness of Einstein's
insights or seeking to compare the greatness of the two men. On the
contrary, I was simply pointing out that Peirce did not *need *Einstein in
order to recognize the more fundamental reality of *motio
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
Yes - David Bohm has some interesting theories about the 'implicate
order'. Fits in with Peirce, I think.
Paul Davies also had some interesting books [and edited collections]
on this.
On 5/1/2019 7:06 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
Peirce's fundamental hypotheses concerning the nature of time
and space--and the relations between them--may very well run
deeper and look further towards the future than what Einstein
had to offer.
To a large extent that is true. Peirce knew t
