Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Super-Order and the Logic of Continuity (was Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology))

Jeffrey, Jon, list: You quoted Peirce saying: "Any proposition whatever concerning the order of Nature must touch more or less upon religion." What a strange statement. Would you accept that if I had said it instead of Peirce? Best, Jerry R On Sun, Nov 6, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear list: I came across this portion of *Measure for Measure* by Shakespeare through Peirce's *Man's Glassy Essence*. I feel like this relates to the present discussion somehow but the exactness is lost on me. Not sure that a historicist reading is even possible. Any thoughts will be

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Edwina, list: "I do not understand you," is the phrase of an angry man. *http://www.peirce.org/writings/p27.html * Hth, Jerry R On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 9:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Jon, Gary R- I wrote this before - > > Peirce

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

even contributes to the *uberty* of reasoning, which far more calls for solicitous care. With best wishes, Jerry Rhee On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, Jerry, List, > > Jon, I concur with your assessment. > > Best, > >

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

ed the *commens*. It consists of all that is, and must be, well understood between utterer and interpreter, at the outset, in order that the sign in question should fulfill its function. This I proceed to explain." ~Peirce Hth, Jerry Rhee On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <j

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

> (4) Inference Rules. > > But that's just the formal underpinnings -- there's all sorts > of informal heuristics, regulative principles, rules of thumb > that go toward sustaining any system of significant practical > use, and that's where bits of practical advice like the Maxi

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

Dear list: with apologies... I meant "from the start no better than a vegetable". Best, Jerry R On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, list: > > Thank you for that earnest answer. > Still, can there not be a strongest argu

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

elaborate, but I will have > to beg off at this point and try to get back to it later on. > > Regards, > > Jon > > On 11/1/2016 2:05 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > > Jon, list: > > > > How do you assess whether a pragmatic maxim is good or bad?

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear list: What gets lost in all this is the ultimate aim of this conversation for all who investigate. So, what is it? I don't suspect that it is to bring us to *gether*. It is not to promote growth of concrete reasonableness, for how can you love what you cannot trust? Best, Jerry R On Thu,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear list: The pragmatic maxim: If good because useful, then not useful because we do not even look to it. Therefore, not useful. Best, Jerry R On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon, Edwina, list: I would like to recommend a method to help you clarify your meaning. To ascertain the meaning of your current intellectual conception, one should consider what practical consequences might result from the truth of that conception—and the sum of these consequences constitute

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

is ignoble and of ignoble breed; and the driving of them of necessity gives a great deal of trouble to him.” ~Plato, Phaedrus Hth, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:58 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Nov 2, 2016, at 3:47 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalans

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinctive Reason and Metaphysics

a real law that existences will follow.” There is your proof, which is to say that it is in the future and that it will not be decided by you; but experience and history. Best, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jeff, List: > > T

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon, list: Here it is: “Keep your one purpose steadily and alone in view, and you may promise yourself the attainment of your sole desire, which is to hasten the chariot wheels of redeeming love!” ~Peirce Best, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalans

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Instinctive Reason and Metaphysics

Gary, list: I think this answers your question but it’s a little mysterious. I will leave it at that but do want to emphasize choice of the word retroduction over abduction, that is, choices that are adopted after the fact and not at the outset. “Further, just as in arguments about

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Maxims

that of a second conception except so far as, >> taken in connection with other conceptions and intentions, it might >> conceivably modify our practical conduct differently from that second >> conception. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Religious Views (was Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology))

btw, As to what Jesus taught, (John 10:37-38): “Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Best, Jerry Rhee On Mon, O

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Religious Views (was Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology))

Jon, John, Gary, list: I take back what I said earlier. I think after this posting, this is a good road to travel. Thank you for the references. _ What is the "higher point of view with St. John as the universal evolutionary formula? In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was

Re: CSP and Spinoza (was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology))

Dear list: Dear list: I found an essay by Gabriele Tomasi, who speaks on Wittgenstein and not Peirce. He writes: “The German text sounds: «Das künstlerische Wunder ist, daß es die Welt gibt. Daß es gibt, was es gibt». This suggests that the miracle in question is in some sense worked by

Re: CSP and Spinoza (was Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology))

, Jerry Rhee On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 9:37 AM, <jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> wrote: > List: > > On Oct 30, 2016, at 12:30 AM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Spinoza’s chief work, the “Ethics”, is an exposition of the idea of the > absolute, with a monistic theory

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

are frequently quoted in literature. One of these is *omnis determinatio est negation*, “all specification involves exclusion”; another is that matters must be considered *sub specie aeternitatis*, “under their essential aspects.” Hth, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Gary Richmond

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims (was Peirce's Cosmology)

erful being, and to what are you looking*? With best wishes, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear list: > > > > If pragmaticism appears to have been virtually the philosophy of Socrates, > then it should be he

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2016, at 10:29 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > > I guess that the question whether there is God or not leads to the > assumtion that there is God:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Dear Clark, list: Well, perhaps it can happen faster if they get some more funding as Peirce's popularity and awareness of his contribution grows. Best, Jerry Rhee On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:11 PM, CLARK GOBLE <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2016, at 2:38 PM, Jerry

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

e we could simply google phrases, nowadays... All the best, Jerry Rhee On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2016, at 11:53 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > CG: I usually prefer to quote from E

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Auke: I was referring to the question of whether if firstness is first, then what is it for a firstness to be first for a community when that community is comprised of both experts and novices? Is it to know things as they first come to us or to know things by nature? If by nature, then what

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

*Deus, sive Natura*: “That eternal and infinite being we call *God*, or *Nature*, acts from the same necessity from which he exists” (Part IV, Preface), Spinoza On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Søren Brier wrote: > Edwina, list > > > > It is clear that the concept of god in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

ideal. For, a > sustem of semiotics must not only account for the scientific enterprise, > but also for our day to day communication, not regulated by a knowledge > ideal, but by other interests. > > > > Best, Auke > > > > *Van:* Jerry Rhee [mailto:jerryr..

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

not matter to the community. This, I know. Best, Jerry Rhee On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Auke van Breemen <a.bree...@chello.nl> wrote: > Dear Kirsti, > > As in our past exchanges I value your response and its tone of voice. In > discussions I always try to be short

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

Dear list: Here is an additional perspective to help interpretation: “Socrates seems to have regarded the change which he brought about as a return to “sobriety” and “moderation” from the “madness” of his predecessors. In contradistinction to his predecessors, he did not separate wisdom from

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

or astronomy. Where in infancy is philosophy as a scientific form in inquiry? That is, have the most rigorous philosophers accepted CP 5.189 as a formalized starting point to explain unexplained phenomena? Thanks, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 4:09 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and Categories

Jeff, list: Here is an even more compact argument that we should admire: By a “Sign” is meant any Ens which is determined by a single Object or set of Objects called its Originals, all other than the Sign itself, and in its turn is capable of determining in a Mind something called its

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

ntion to the importance of this correct filter: https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25540 Best, Jerry R On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:52 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > https://outlivinglife.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/information_hose.jpg > > Best, > Jerry R > >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

https://outlivinglife.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/information_hose.jpg Best, Jerry R On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > Ben, List: > > Thank you for sharing these comments. I will need to take a look at the > text of Heidegger's speech, and

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

Dear list: Plato: The Soul is older than the body, *Laws* Aristotle: Substance/non-being is first in every sense, *Metaphysics* Peirce: Substance and being are the beginning and end of all conception, *On a New List of Categories* Best, Jerry R On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Jon Alan

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims (was Peirce's Cosmology)

red to act on it as a habit.” Let us acknowledge, then, that we have this preamble. Let us acknowledge that *CP 5.189 is the one and only one single best pragmatic maxim.* Best, Jerry Rhee In addition to Pape’s essay, I embedded quotes from various Plato dialogues, which is justifi

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Maxims (was Peirce's Cosmology)

for the conversation. Best, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1:43 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote: > I agree with Jon, of course. He is right about the confusion, and the > issue I tried to address in my previous post was to find some common > unifying factor, not neces

[PEIRCE-L] was Peirce's Cosmology and Pragmatic Maxim

pragmatic maxim were you referring when you asserted that “all three elements are involved in the pragmatic maxim”? Thanks, Jerry Rhee - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

is — that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me." ~Plato on the attitude in dialectic Best, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:01 PM, John Collier &l

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

John Collier, list: You said: I agree with Edwina that all three elements are involved in the pragmatic maxim. Do you mind stating where, in the pragmatic maxim, it says this? I'm not questioning whether it is or not. I'm just not sure to what you are referring. Thank you, Jerry R On Sat,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

y pretends to do, at least so far as it is confined to logic, and is not understood as a proposition in psychology.* Best, Jerry Rhee On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Edwina, list: > > > > I apologize if I missed something but wha

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

you see why I object to “Consider what effects…”? It doesn’t fully/wholly/completely capture the essence of pragmaticism, e.g., things like the categories, of which there are three; ordinality, philosophy of Socrates, the commens, convergence to truth, etc... Best, Jerry Rhee Consider what

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

lves and by developing more > semiosic networked connections with other Objects. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> > *To:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > *Cc:* Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> ; Mike Bergm

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

Edwina, What part does the object play in that universe? Thanks, Jerry On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Helmut - well, I'm an atheist and am also bothered by the anthropocentric > images of an individual Agential Creator - which, in my view, can't

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

?”* Best, Jerry Rhee On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 3:29 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon, Edwina, Gary F, Soren, List, > > John Sheriff, in *Charles Peirce's Guess at the Riddle: Grounds for Human > Significance*, in commenting on what Peirce calls the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

Dear list: *“The starting-point of the universe, God the Creator, is the Absolute First; the terminus of the universe, God completely revealed, is the Absolute Second; every state of the universe at a measurable point of time is the third.* *First and Second**, Agent and Patient, Yes and No,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

the logic of abduction? Which is the strongest argument? Is CP 5.189 not a pragmatic maxim; the best one? Thank you for your time. Best, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 5:21 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > On 10/13/2016 5:24 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > >> [Peirce's pragmati

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

Dear list: Consider the pragmatic maxim: *Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.* *If* *This maxim once accepted, –

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

they are really separated by an interval, which no geometrical ratio can express. Best, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > I am rapidly becoming quite enamored with Peirce's blackboard discussio

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

Hi all, As a point of clarification: This is an argument: The surprising fact, C, is observed. But if A were true, C would be a matter of course. Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true. because An "Argument" is any *process of thought* *reasonably tending to produce a definite

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

Dear list: Here’re some breadcrumbs for Firstness Secondness Thirdness: Peirce's Neglected Argument, Bowman L. Clarke The breadcrumbs for First Second Third as categories, which relate to the Universes are in A Guess at the Riddle. But really, your approach is flawed. You have to learn

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Cosmology

re of arguments and their relations to objects and to minds.“ ~Richard McKeon, Dialogue and Controversy in Philosophy *The surprising fact C is observed. * *But if A were true...* Best, Jerry Rhee On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jon,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inquiry involving 'potential populations', was, PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Ben, list: You said: *it's pretty hopeless to confine one's attention to such things. Part of Arnold's point seems to be that we can't so confine our attention, since social institutions themselves already are social inquiry processes.* Nietzsche said: *Essential to begin with the body and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Inquiry involving 'potential populations', was, PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

t, perhaps, in a city of a thousand men, there would be a hundred, or say fifty, who could?* Best, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ben, Jon, list, > > The discussion today got me thinking again about Arnold Shepperson's w

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Dear all, Perhaps I ought to point out the elephant in the room. Despite your admission that: "*any *abduction whose resulting hypothesis passes the test of the PM and (ultimately) the other two stages of inquiry is a *good *abduction" why do disagreements persist and why are disputants unable

Re: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

, but always arrives in her own way at the truest result. YOUNG SOCRATES: Clearly. Best, Jerry Rhee On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > Thanks for your kind words. I think that the discussion over the last > several

[PEIRCE-L] On the BEST pragmatic maxim

this — that whereas he seeks to convince his hearers that what he says is true, I am rather seeking to convince myself; to convince my hearers is a secondary matter with me. “ ~ *Phaedo* Best, Jerry Rhee - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Repl

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Principles of Classification?

Ben, list: Thank you for that contribution! I wish to extend that conversation: “How can a creature so place himself at the point of view of his Creator?” “The natural way of doing this is to start from the things which are more knowable and obvious to us and proceed towards those which are

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Helmut, list: I think you’ve said something profound. You said: "So making an abduction is not pragmaticism (given that pragmaticism is deductive). But talking about abduction is, because it includes a deduction." I think listers will object to your “abduction is not pragmaticism because

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Principles of Classification?

Hi Mike, list: Here is something by Peir...uh, I mean Plato and Emerson. If only Peirce, then it should be treated as new information. *"For everything that exists there are three instruments by which the knowledge of it is necessarily imparted; fourth, there is the knowledge itself, and, as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Hi everyone: "We can then (inductively) experiment with actual diamonds to find out whether, in fact, this is the case." Where is genuine doubt? Thanks, Jerry R On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 3:42 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > Clark, List: > > As (hopefully) clarified in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

impse at best but very glibberly) even in the case of what shoots through our own minds, *it is much safer to define all mental characters as far as possible in terms of their outward manifestations*." ~Peirce Best, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 2:02 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lext

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Jon, list: You pull that quote as if everything is self-evident. Yet, you never provide that certain maxim that is posed by pragmatism, as if that is understood. Yet, if you pose it, state it clearly, say it explicitly, express it out loud; you will discover that it is the wrong maxim. "...if

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Jon, Gary, list: I do not see how we're back to anything at all about a complete inquiry when you have not spoken a whit on "beauty, upon moral virtue, or upon abstract truth, the three things that alone raise Humanity above Animality'" Best, Jerry R On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Jon Alan

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Dear all: It would help this conversation if you state clearly which maxim of pragmatism to which you are referring. Because this one following...there is a severe flaw in it: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Jon, list: You said: "As you hinted, Houser's comment wrongly equates pragmatism with its maxim, when the latter is only one aspect of pragmat[ic]ism as a whole." What do you mean by *pragmaticism as a whole*? Is there a complete maxim of pragmaticism that is different from a complete maxim of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

m by which to interpret what Peirce is trying to say to us? I think it is reasonable to assume that there are persons who would choose not to adopt CP 5.189 because one doesn’t like Jerry more than one likes what CP 5.189 can do for him in spite of Jerry. It is what one prefers to do. Best, Jerry Rh

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Clark, list: I like your warnings. And I like that they are coming from you and not me. ___ Jeff said: I do think there are a spectrum of different approaches and aims that might guide our engagement with the ideas and arguments Peirce was developing. No, there is one and only

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

matic maxim. With best wishes, Jerry Rhee On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jeff D., Gary R., list, > > I assume we're discussing what Peirce thought, rather than what we > variously may think for our own parts. Peirce spells out the diff

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Eugene, Edwina, list: If we affix our gaze upon the wet lawn and muse about what it means, what do you think we, as a community, will say? What if instead we immanate about *quid sit deus*; "What would God be?" one two three...Apollo Themis Zeus...mind body soul Best, Jerry Rhee O

Re: Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Helmut, list: Void is a place/interval with nothing in it. That conclusion is reached by syllogism. Best, Jerry R On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > Edwina, list, > I dont remember, where I have got the term "Horror Vacui" from, but I > think it

Re: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

":-- O wonderful being, and to what are you looking?” Best, Jerry Rhee On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Nice outline, Helmut. But I'll quibble with a few terms. > > For example, your theist claims that 'an intellige

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

he Father, Son and Spirit and see how humbling your response is against that made by a different community of inquirers, *viz*., *us*. For instance, what is plausible about Jesus being the Son of God? With best wishes, Jerry Rhee On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 1:32 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < je

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

-strauss.html?_r=0 Best, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jeffrey - I have a few problems with your analysis. I'll comment below: > - Original Message - From: "Jeffrey Brian Downard" < > jeffrey.down...@nau.e

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

t; so..wasn't it Tolstoy who said that 'wrong does not cease to be wrong just > because the majority shares in it'... > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> > *To:* Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> > *Cc:* Peirce-L &

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

right back to arguing with no course for how to determine a good hypothesis from a bad one. Best, Jerry Rhee On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:33 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > On Sep 19, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > Clark- t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

neer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Jon, list: >> >> >> >> You said: >> >> “ I find it rather

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Hi Ben, list: What do you take as the thing that determines it in Chiasson's essay, then? Thanks, Jerry R On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Ben Novak wrote: > Clark, Jon, Jerry, Edwina, List: > > > Perhaps this essay can help in finding what Peirce meant by speaking of >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Relations of determination--three diagrams to highlight the strata of possibles, existents and necessitants in the 10-fold classification

Edwina, list: You said: *until that I-O relation does indeed correlate with the R-O Relation? Isn't this what Peirce meant by eventually arriving at the truth?* Yes. So, where is this object? On this list, it's what Peirce said. But you said different than what Jon said about what Peirce said.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Theory of posting

Dear Edwina, Gary, list: It would surprise me more if one did *not* get angry when truth about interpretation is at stake. Why do people get angry and fight about metaphors? One two three…*thumos, eros, logos*… Best, Jerry R On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Edwina Taborsky

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

> We had that discussion already, in its own thread. Besides, CP 6.469 is > part of the article that is supposed to be the subject of *this *thread. > > JR: Hth, Jerry R > > > Nidn, > > Jon S. > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.c

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

s, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 4:26 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Dear lis

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Dear list: Jon, you said, "At least we agree that everyone should read Peirce for themselves and draw their own conclusions." This is NOT what is meant by Peircean intention. You have no farther than to look into his disagreement with James to know this. In fact, this is of such a problematic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Dear list: What I find comedic and tragic about this whole situation is that while claiming truth about interpreting Peirce, you continue to ignore the ground that is put in front of us. How many different ways are there of interpreting CP 5.189, the logic of abduction? There is your

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

we be just without Nature? Can we know truth without revelation? Can we recognize the Beautiful without a clear conception of the Divine? What would God be? Hth, Jerry Rhee On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Ben - I don't think that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Hi Ben, Harold, Jon, Edwina, Gary list: This whole business of *one two three; one three two; Firstness Secondness Thirdness; Firstness Thirdness, Secondness; what is First or Second when speaking of an object *appears irresolvable. Everyone has his/her own pet theory for which it ought to be

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Ben, What is Anselm's ontological argument, for it is my opinion that someone from Missouri is expected to know it. If I, being from Missouri, is not expected to know about Anselm's ontological argument, then why are you imposing the question on us, which includes me? Best, Jerry R On Tue, Sep

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

? Best, Jerry Rhee On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:22 PM, Stephen C. Rose <stever...@gmail.com> wrote: > Inevitably if Peirce is to become a basis for a zeitgeist or understanding > -- that we no longer live in a binary world destined for inevitable > conflict -- he wil

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Clark, list: Thank you for bringing attention back to the issue of indubitable belief with: “I confess I had to look it up even though it’s right down my alley." And thus, knowledge grows from more to more; symbols grow, meanings grow. Also, for the following that illustrates one

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

> biology, physico-chemistry, AI, computers..isn't new! There are journals; >> there are books; there are conferences devoted to these issues. Google >> 'biosemiotics' on your own. >> >> And I recall a Nobel Laureate in physics, in a conference, declaring that >> Peircean semiotic

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

al realm > support this. > > Edwina > > - Original Message - > *From:* Ben Novak <trevriz...@gmail.com> > *To:* Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> ; Helmut Raulien > <h.raul...@gmx.de> ; Jon Alan Sch

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

there might even be a *best*. But where is the proof for a community? “That the settlement of opinion is the sole end of inquiry is a very important proposition. It sweeps away, at once, various vague and erroneous conceptions of proof.” Hth, Jerry Rhee On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 9:40 AM, Edwina

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Jon, list: This is the bizarre one: - Representation is (only) Thirdness. Where, exactly, does Peirce state this? Give me the name, date and serial number! :) Best, Jerry R On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > Gary- enjoy your weekend. Hope the

[PEIRCE-L] Re: CP 5.189 and the form of abduction we ought to take

, Jerry Rhee On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Jerry Rhee <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > There are numerous ways to interpret text. > > Yet, by placing things next to each other, certain things pop out. > > > > Consider from *Timaeus* (26e, 27c) the following: > > >

[PEIRCE-L] CP 5.189 and the form of abduction we ought to take

of abduction we ought to take? Thank you for any contribution. Best, Jerry Rhee - PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSC

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

t (soi)? At the end of inquiry, it will be osi because it’s the natural way of seeing things as they are. Oh, and what organizes the categories as a proposition? CP 5.189. If not this, *which*? Don’t be a vegetable. Best, Jerry Rhee “We must state whether it belongs to one or to different sc

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's Theory of Thinking

ced (and of course much better elaborated > than I would be able to do) by the book "Thinking evil" by Bettina > Stangneth. > Best, > Helmut > > 09. September 2016 um 04:10 Uhr > "Jerry Rhee" <jerryr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Jon,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce's Theory of Thinking

Jon, list: They are all consistent. What is analogical reasoning but saying one thing in terms of another? essence and esse Subject and predicate Father and Son Non-being and being Agent and patient First and Second ens originarium and ens necessarium theologico-physico name and

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

, and will strive to be the the worthy knight and champion of her from the blaze of whose splendors he draws his inspiration and his courage.” “*Let us acknowledge**, **then**, that **we have a preamble*.” Best, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 5:21 PM, CLARK GOBLE <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > &

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Theory of Thinking

not smart. Still, I understand this is a Peirce list and he was a prodigious writer, has an inherently coherent system and hard enough to understand in its own. Best, Jerry Rhee On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Jon, list > > My

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >