BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
1] I think you are missing my point, which is that the triad, which
I refer to as a Sign, is a functional whole; it is irreducible in
this functionality. To intellectually reduce it to its parts totally
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
The problem I have with this claim is that it is invalid.
JAS: As with any logical or mathematical "proof"--i.e., any
deductive argumentation--the conclusion is only as strong as the
premisses.
Edwina, List:
1. I am not the one "reducing the Sign to its parts," since I consistently
maintain that the Object and Interpretant are external to the Sign, not
parts of the Sign.
2. "Necessitant" is a technical term in Peirce's semeiotic, and hence we
are ethically bound to use it only as he d
Edwina, List:
ET: All dogs are animals/All cats are animals. BOTH these premises are
true. Can I logically then state that All dogs are cats?
No, and why not? Because the conclusion *does not* follow necessarily from
the premisses; the *form *of the argumentation is *invalid*. The same is
tr
Jon,
Anyone is welcome to claim that Satan (or anything else) is that
Object [of the semeiotic proof], but thereby accepts the burden
of making a case for it based on the attributes that such an Object
must have. I suspect that it would amount to nothing more than
equating the proper names "Sat
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
You are misunderstanding what I mean by reducing the Sign to its
parts. You are ignoring that the sign/representamen and the DO and IO
AND the II and DI are all integrated components of a semiosic proces
Gary F., List:
Thank you for further clarifying your objection. Initially it was that God
is completely separated from His creation, and thus absent from the
Universes of Experience. When I disputed this, it was that our
acquaintance with God must be entirely mediated by Signs. Since I pointed
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
1] I disagree with your assertion that Peirce never said that the
triad is a sign. See.. "by 'semiosis' I mean, on the contrary, an
action or influence, which is, or involves, a cooperation of three
subj
Stephen, list,
I did not find your post offensive. I think it is a valuable thesis, that the concept of God is sometimes too much complexified. The same, I sometimes guess, applies to the concepts of money and sexuality: What "God", "money", and "sex" have in common is ontologically, that it i
Thanks. For me love is more what you reject and affirm. Reject hurt harm
and fear and you are poised to live decently. Affirm DIY -- recognizing the
necessary difference among spirits-material persons as they engage in their
playing out of freedom. I see everyone this way. Everything anyone does is
John, List:
JFS: But nothing in that argument that depends on the nature of the
creator as benign or malevolent, perfect or imperfect, necessary or
contingent.
I have not claimed otherwise, except to quote Peirce himself as stating
explicitly that God is *Ens necessarium* ("A Neglected Argument
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS, list
Just a brief comment. You wrote:
"He never claimed to have worked out all of the ramifications of
his own thought during his lifetime; on the contrary, he said more
than once that he was coun
Edwina, List:
1. Please reread what you quoted from CP 5.484 very carefully. It states
that *semeiosis *is "an action or influence" that involves *three
*subjects, one of
which is a *Sign*. Hence the word "Sign" does not denote the *action*, but
one of the three *subjects *involved in that acti
Edwina, List:
While I understand what you are asking and why, I think that it is an
inaccurate and unfair characterization of my List participation over the
years. I have stated repeatedly that the issue for me is one of
*terminological
ethics*--in accordance with Peirce's own well-documented sta
On 5/20/2019 4:27 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
If each of my premisses is true, and the form of my argumentation
is valid --which it unquestionably is, as demonstrated below --
then the conclusion must also be true; i.e., my argumentation
is sound.
That is the most anti-Peircean dogma imaginable
Jon S, Gary F, John S, Edwina, Gary R, List
I'd like to raise some questions about the assertion that every sign has an
object that is separate, in some sense, from that sign. The basis of the claim
that the object must be separate from the sign, I am supposing, is that the
object determines t
John, Jon, List
John quoted Jon, then wrote:
Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
> If each of my premisses is true, and the form of my argumentation
> is valid --which it unquestionably is, as demonstrated below --
> then the conclusion must also be true; i.e., my argumentation
> is sound.
JS: That is the m
17 matches
Mail list logo
