Edwina, List,
I think, "classification" has two meanings: The classifying act, where causality goes along with temporality, and second the state of classes in the present, like a snapshot, where so there cannot be a temporality. But in this latter definition too, causality is detectable, becau
A few more comments.
1] With regard to your post, John - I support the shift from a language based
analysis to an image based one - but - question whether the phaneron is “in
direct contact with the ding an sich’. My understanding is that such a
relationship never takes place.
2]with regard to
Edwina, List:
ET: I’m afraid I simply don’t understand your outline - and wonder why the
’phaneroscopic analysis' differs from the ‘classification of signs’.
I will try one more time to explain, and then I will likely have to leave
it at that. Peirce's well-known 1903 taxonomy for sign classific
On this issue, the evidence for the trichotomy (Mark Token Type) is
overwhelming.Just look at the first instance in the Prolegomena, or the
copy in CP 4.537 where Peirce adopts 'Tone' as the name of the first item in
the trichotomy: "An indefinite significant character such as a tone of voi
> On Apr 5, 2024, at 5:35 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> ET: I’m afraid I simply don’t understand your outline - and wonder why the
> ’phaneroscopic analysis' differs from the ‘classification of signs’.
>
> I will try one more time to explain, and then I will likely have t
Jon, Edwina, List,
Please note the subject line. The 1903 Harvard and Lowell lectures were an
important starting point for the major developments in Peirce's final decade.
And note Tony's word 'evolving' for the developments during that decade. In
any decision about Peirce's directions and i
John, List:
Anyone is welcome to make a case for the opinion that "mark" is a
*better *choice
than "tone" for the first member of the trichotomy for sign classification
whose other two members are "token" and "type," but no one can accurately
claim that "mark" was *Peirce's *final and definitive c
Edwina, List:
ET: I’m not sure why you have defined the object as ‘dynamical’; and the
interpretant as ‘final’. Peirce didn’t do that in this section.
This is not at all controversial among Peirce scholars. He does not refer
to the *dynamical *object and *final *interpretant in 1903 because he h
FYI
JLRC
Friday, April 12th @ 12:00 pm - 1:30 pm EDT
This talk will also be available live streamed on: Zoom at
https://pitt.zoom.us/j/94576817686
Title: Peirce Disappears: C.S. Peirce and Early Logical Empiricism
Abstract: Scholars of the history of philosophy of science read and hear a lo
