s-peirce-papers> for the
Charles S. Peirce Papers. Do you have a different link for the Logic
Notebook manuscript?
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, Jul
ces of the same Sign can (and often
do) have different *Dynamic *Interpretants, even though they all have the
same *Final *Interpretant.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAla
JFS: Peirce emphasized fallibilism about physics. He would be more
cautious about metaphysics, even his own.
Indeed, we are discussing hypotheses rather than dogmas; and I acknowledge
that Peirce characterized the hypothesis of God, in particular, "as vague
yet as true so far as it is d
, hence my
suggestion that we consider using "indefinite" for Peirce's conception
instead. It strikes me as an important insight on his part that although
continuity itself is *generality* (3ns), the parts of a true continuum are
*indefinite* (1ns) unless and until they are "ma
s a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's purpose, working
out its conclusions in living realities … The Universe as an argument is
necessarily a great work of art, a great poem,--for every fine argument is
a poem and a symphony,--just as every true poem is a sound argument. (CP
1.315 &
quot;vague."
JFS: For more examples and discussion, see "What is the source of
fuzziness?"
Again, as Lane observes, Peirce's "idea of vagueness is quite different
from the contemporary one" (p. 139); in particular, "by 'vague' he did not
mean exactly w
ity, followed by its application to Propositions and then to
the entire Universe as an Argument. That earlier hypothesis was directly
prompted by Lane's "dual-aspect account of truth" (chapter 1), in which a
true belief (1) represents reality and (2) would be permanently settled by
i
r implied that it is anything that *Peirce *intended.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 2:05 PM John F Sowa wrote:
> Jon and Edwi
it was inspired by some of his
ideas and thus qualifies as "Peircean." Why the double standard?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, Jul 18, 2
better argument.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, Jul 17, 2019 at 12:52 PM John F Sowa wrote:
> Jon,
>
> I agree that my comments were abou
ective approaches for studying and discussing Peirce's
views on those topics (and others). We already thoroughly covered that
ground both on- and off-List not long ago, so now those reading along--or,
preferably, joining the conversation--can evaluate for themselves the
appropriateness
o the more elevating theory of *idealism*.
(R 936:2-3)
I made the case for what I understand to be the corresponding cosmology in
my online essay for *Signs - International Journal of Semiotics* (
https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas,
genuine doubt; it simply requires a willingness
to engage in further inquiry, should such doubt be prompted by new
information. In this case, if there are *later *writings by Peirce that
might be understood to *repudiate *objective idealism as he defined it in
1891, then I would sincerely like to take
propositions must
be *true*, such that "It is false that John gives John to John."
On the other hand, if we scribe the Existential Graph for "John gives John
to John," and then follow the same two steps, we get the corresponding
Entitative Graph--which is identical to Figure 1, e
discovered the far preferable
system, on the whole, of Existential Graphs, which are merely entitative
graphs turned inside out ... (R 280:21; c. 1904-1905)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
eet is still that of conditional necessity, but expressed differently--if
not this, then the other, and vice-versa. I apologize for the mistake.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
<htt
ws of Form* (LoF) presents a version of diagrammatic
logic that maps to Peirce's Entitative Graphs [CP 3.456-552], the dual
interpretation of Existential Graphs."
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.co
ntitatively *diverse
when they correspond to different essential characters--different Forms,
different conditional propositions--even if they happen to include exactly
the same singulars as their members, and are thus existentially the same.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jon
e isn't sensation".
>
> Here, the basic argument of 'knowledge is sensation' is false. How can it
> be supported by a 'better argument, when the belief is itself fallacious?
>
> Edwina
>
> On Mon 24/06/19 5:17 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.
tion being criticized.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 3:44 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> JAS, list
>
> I disagree with your comme
ire to achieve. If someone disagrees
with what I post on the List--whether a particular reading of Peirce's
words, or my own suggestion "inspired by" them--then the proper response is
to offer a *better* argument, instead of just complaining about *mine*.
Regards,
Jon Ala
om his writings. Rather than trying to impose and enforce
rigid rules for how everyone *must *participate on the List, I suggest that
we cut each other some slack and follow the principle of charity not only
in our reading of Peirce, but also in our reading of each other's posts.
Regards,
Jon Al
fully) everyone else on the List, I
consider myself to be *a student of Peirc*e, such that my attempts at
"harmonizing" are primarily for the purpose of *learning *from him; but any
resulting "system" is ultimately my own.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
alog. There should always be a
"devil's advocate" for challenging any claim.
I agree, and I have found that I indeed learn the most from interacting
with those who *disagree *with me on matters of interpretation--especially
when they are willing to engage in good-faith dialogue.
strongest case for it that I can,
seeing what objections arise, and then figuring out whether and how I can
address them. When no one manages to *persuade *me that I am on the wrong
track, it in no way entails that I am *unwilling *to change my mind.
Again, if someone believes that I am getting somet
you meant that you will be kinder and
gentler in expressing your disagreements with my posts.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:16 A
case.
JFS: These two sources show that Peirce's thoughts had no overlap with
anything Jon was writing about.
Nonsense, they are fully consistent with what I said above and previously.
Besides, I consider Peirce's own voluminous writings to be a much more
reliable source for understandi
ympa/arc/peirce-l/2019-05/msg00238.html> about
"Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric," but ran out of time before
leaving on your trip. I, for one, remain interested in your further
thoughts.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur P
d conduct *experiments* to corroborate
or falsify my previous Perceptual Judgments by putting myself in a position
to Experience new ones (R 299:31-32; 1906).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchm
ment on some other passages where Peirce
actually wrote about this, by all means please do so.
JFS: Juxtaposing quotations is fine. But it's essential to make a sharp
distinction between Peirce's words and anybody else's.
I agree, which is why I always carefully try to do just t
ntial characters can have all the same
singulars as their members; and this makes them *existentially *the same,
but still *entitatively *different.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - t
s Perceptual Judgments by
putting myself in a position to Experience new ones.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-
PEIRCE-L subscri
3ns as 1st, and the Modality that corresponds to 1ns as
3rd. The Principle of Excluded Middle does not apply to an "assertion of
Law" (3ns), because "S would be P" and "S would be not-P" might both be
*false*; and the Principle of Contradiction does not apply to an
ating it as an adversary
to subdue, we should recognize it as a gift to be treasured and tended.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 5:00 PM Eu
e Universe as
inexplicable to constitute a rejection of 3ns by denying the Reality of God
as *Ens necessarium*.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, Jun 2
the three Universes of Experience *inexplicable*; and
the illogical supposition that *anything *is inexplicable is a defining
characteristic of nominalism.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt -
t
its *necessary
*consequences (Deduction); and third, conduct *experiments *to test it
(Induction), thus *deliberately *taking certain actions to find out whether
I have certain Experiences or not.
Regards,
Jon S.
On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 9:34 PM Jon Alan Schmidt
wrote:
> Charles, List:
>
*real *parts. Every
Perceptual Judgment thus purports to represent *Direct *Experience of an
Object or event, and when the latter is interpreted as an Instance of a
Sign, the Perceptual Judgment *also *purports to represent *Indirect *
Experience of the Object determining that *other *Sig
slightest departure from the metaphysics they
assume to be connected with the standard faith" (CP 6.3; 1898). He also
had misgivings about religious *institutions*, since "the
Church requires subscription to a platform--a Creed. And how has that
platform been made? With strict party regu
itself. As Peirce stated
elsewhere, "Abelard reckoned the copula as a third part; and in a certain
sense, it is a part of an assertion, but not in the sense in which the
subject and predicate are parts" (R 339:492; 1908 Oct 17). Again, I might
eventually start another thread by quoti
as an illustration of how the forms of inference function as parts
> of a larger cycle of inquiry, then consider a simplified case like
> sampling colored beans from an urn with replacement.
>
> Yours,
>
> Jeff
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philo
his thought. The
key, as John Sowa pointed out, is to recognize and acknowledge the
difference between restating his views where they are quite clear,
interpreting his views where they are less clear, and developing our own
views where they deviate from his.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas
pressing himself are likely to be thought even more *gauche* than they
really are; and they are bad enough at best.
Pretty much all he can do toward rendering this writing perspicuous, beyond
giving concrete examples whenever he can discover the need of them, is as
far as possible always to use each
disagree?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 1:24 PM wrote:
> Jeff, JAS, Gary R, list,
>
> Having said all I have to say a
vation." After all, he explicitly considered his (Retroductive)
Neglected Argument for the Reality of God to be "the First Stage of a
scientific inquiry, resulting in a hypothesis of the very highest
Plausibility, whose ultimate test must lie in its value in the
self-controlled growth of
e bold was missing from what you actually posted, so I
will hold off on further comment and ask you first to provide the quote
with the formatting that you intended.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/Jon
n the relation of _ to _," which
therefore signifies the Proposition's Interpretant. In fact, this is
precisely the example that Peirce gave elsewhere of a sentence in which the
continuous predicate is expressed entirely by *syntax*.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, K
e my responses below
>
> On Tue 21/05/19 3:12 PM , Jon Alan Schmidt jonalanschm...@gmail.com sent:
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> 1] ET: I don't think that these discussions on religion and logic have
> anything to do with bridging the chasm between religion and science. They
>
imple example of reasoning with EGs in that same
letter to Mr. Kehler with S = the entire Universe, M = a Sign, and P =
determined by an Object other than itself.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanS
miss warrants denying the conclusion; but *given *that additional
premiss, if every Sign is determined by an Object other than itself, then
it *necessarily *follows that the Universe is determined by an Object other
than itself.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Ama
te irrationality of effort to complete
death" (CP 6.201; 1898). I equate this to "The creation of the universe,
which ... is going on today and never will be done" (CP 1.615, EP 2:255;
1903).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosophe
m, "Do not block the way of
inquiry," and share the desire that you and others have expressed to apply
his thought more broadly--but hopefully to *clarify *it; i.e., make
*our *ideas,
*Peirce's *ideas, and the *differences *between them clear.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas,
;
> Therefore although each of your premises might be in itself valid in its
> own domain, I consider that putting them together leads to a false
> conclusion -especially if we differ on the meaning of the terms [Sign].
>
> Edwina
>
> On Mon 20/05/19 11:28 AM , Jon Alan Schmidt
Existents and
"psychical objects" to be the constituents of the third Universe of
Signs/Necessitants.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, May
God be any different? Are you perhaps
suggesting that *entia rationis* are the *only *non-existent Realities that
are knowable?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
conclusion, as well.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:04 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> JAS, list
>
> The problem I have
ands that its very
> identity is the result of the mediating actions of semiosis. Therefore,
> neither the DO nor the DI can be understood as fully separate from the
> semiosis function.
>
> 4] We will have to continue to disagree with regard to the ten classes of
> Signs, which I
of God's, we can catch a fragment of His Thought, as it
were. (CP 6.502; c. 1906)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 2:01 PM John
ment that he never--*not once*--used "Sign"
for a triad.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 7:31 AM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
&g
ws necessarily* from certain basic tenets of Peirce's
Semeiotic. Someone who is unfamiliar with or takes exception to the latter
will obviously not find my approach even remotely persuasive.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran L
(SS 193; 1905). He never--*not
once*--used "Sign" for a triad, since a triad is always a *relation*, while
a Sign is always a *correlate*.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter
a *part
*of God.
ET: I recall Peirce's outline of the emergence of our universe [1.412] and
the description is most clearly an action of self-organization.
No, it is not; and even if it were, Peirce later described that account as
"faulty," as I discuss in my online paper
<https://tidss
esome rhetorical ploy
with no basis in anything that I have actually advocated.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 5:32 PM Edwina Tabors
n the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the
Sole Creator of every content of them without exception" (R 843:15; 1908).
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSch
ty'. Does that make sense?
Yes, I will try to keep this in mind going forward--and also try to refrain
from further theological nitpicking accordingly. :-)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanS
itself, of course not; again, only to the extent that it serves as one
of *several *premisses in a supporting argumentation that I have now
presented, expounded, and defended at considerable length. Taking my own
statements out of context is just as inappropriate as doing so with
Peirce's sta
. Every Argument *involves *Propositions and Semes. Calling the
Universe a Symbol and an Argument (both singular) does not in any way *reduce
*its complexity, but rather *recognizes *its complexity--an Argument
is the *most
complex* kind of Sign that there is! Nevertheless, like any other Si
s about the
nature of semeiosis, the definition of "Representamen," and whether "Sign"
designates a triad or a correlate are well-documented; so we need not
rehash them.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.Linke
ry principle of responsible scholarship.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 10:00 AM John F Sowa wrote:
> On 5/18/2019 10:48 AM, Jon
Again, as with any deductive argumentation, anyone who rejects the
conclusion is *rationally required* to deny at least one of the
premisses--each of which Peirce *explicitly *affirmed.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
g the mother of Jesus, who was God.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:16 PM Gary Richmond
wrote:
> Mary, List,
>
> You wr
only *subordinate
to the Father in His *humanity*--not in His *divinity*, as the Word. He is
"God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being
of one substance with the Father, by Whom all things were made" (Nicene
Creed). All three Persons are "coete
tirely on what one means by "empirical evidence." My
position is that it is not a matter of whether there *is *such evidence
either way, but rather how one *evaluates *the evidence. "A Neglected
Argument" expresses one sense in which *Peirce *affirmed that there
*is *empir
scripts, I suspect that you
and I can legitimately say that we have gotten to know him quite well by
now. How is that possible? Why would God be any different?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonA
among us, and we have seen his glory,
glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth ... For
from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was
given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. (John
1:14-17; ESV)
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt
ypothesis will lead to our thinking of features of each
Universe as purposed; and this will stand or fall with the hypothesis. Yet
a purpose essentially involves growth, and so cannot be attributed to God.
Still it will, according to the hypothesis, be less false to speak so than
to represent God as purpose
was *with* God, but also that the *logos **was* God
(rather than a Demiurge or blind agent); and John 1:3 affirms that all
things were *made* by the *logos*.
I look forward to seeing what else you have to say!
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher
presenting and interpreting the texts.
Thank you for once again helping me to sharpen my thinking about these
matters.
Cheers,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On T
one can *reasonably *ascribe
to him the position that the entire Universe is *not *a Sign.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 2:41 P
"a creator conceived as in organic connection with the
creation," rather than a "creator from whom the creation is conceived as
separated."
- "[T]he world, or the soul of the world ... either is [God] or is in
God."
In other words, Peirce *did *hold that
is
something outside the Universe, one must either deny that there is
something outside every Sign, or deny that the Universe is a Sign--either
of which would be a clear and obvious departure from Peirce's explicitly
stated views.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Prof
ignore
something that he *explicitly *said; and what we *should not* do is accuse
him of self-contradiction, unless it is completely unavoidable.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAl
it *cannot
*be a Sign; but according to Peirce, it *is *a Sign, so it *must *have an
external-to-itself Object.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Thu, M
en citing. Moreover, my Semeiotic
Argumentation does not rely on either word; what matters is that every Sign
is determined by an Object *other than itself*--i.e., the Object is
always *external
*to, *independent *of, and *unaffected *by the Sign.
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
P
ret itself.
Sure, but it is not sufficient for the Universe to *determine *itself; an
external Object is *necessary *to determine it.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanS
external
Object." Again, the only way to avoid this *deductive *conclusion is to
deny one of the premisses--i.e., claim either that the Universe is
*not *composed
of Signs, or that some Signs *do not* have external Objects, both of which
would be clear and obvious departures from Peirce's st
constant is *really *
constant.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 2:29 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <
jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> w
tations of employing *discrete *Signs
to analyze *continuous* semeiosis.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 5:31 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <
fessed atheism. It is about which
interpretation squares best with *all *of the relevant texts, and as
always, those reading along can decide for themselves.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmi
l universe" as a Sign of God. In each
case, the Sign *conveys knowledge* of the person. And in the second
passage, besides affirming the *transcendence *of God as previously quoted,
Peirce also succinctly explained why he argued for the *Reality *of God,
rather than the *existence *of God.
Re
tically denying
that God is immanent in Nature or the three Universes.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 1:40 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard
to connecting the many fragmented dots today.
Indeed, and one example of "the many fragmented dots today" is the divide
between science and religion, which Peirce himself conscientiously sought
to bridge. I suspect that he would heartily endorse efforts to develop and
apply his i
oreover, immediately after calling the Universe "a vast representamen,"
Peirce added that it is "a great symbol of God's purpose" (CP 5.119, EP
2:193; 1903)--implying not only that God *has *a purpose, but also that the
entire Universe as a Sign is an *expression *of His purpose.
gards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:33 PM Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> See my responses below:
>
> On Tue 14/05/19 6:10 PM , Jon Alan
I interpret this as part of a *reductio ad absurdum*, which demonstrates
that without *necessary *being (*Ens necessarium*), there would be no being *at
all*. The only absolutely necessary result of a state of utter nothingness
is ... utter nothingness. For the long version, see my online paper
<http
being interpreted as representing something else in some way, then there is
an effect that it "*would *produce upon any mind upon which the
circumstances should permit it to work out its full effect."
Since you acknowledge your disagreement with Peirce about the entire
Universe having
od as the creator of all three Universes of Experience in the
very first sentence of "A Neglected Argument" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434; 1908),
so that should not be controversial at all.
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www
he universe? In what respects might it be in
error about the laws of logic?
How could the Universe *itself*, understood as a Quasi-mind, "be in error
about the laws of logic"? Even if this were possible, given that we
are *within
*the Universe, how could we ever discover and correct such
in nature or the three Universes, but
rather its/their "Sole Creator"? Do you simply disagree with him on these
points?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlan
ning an
interpretant which would be the *perfect Truth*, the absolute Truth, and as
such (at least, we may use this language) would be the very Universe ... The
"Truth," the fact that is not abstracted but complete, is the ultimate
interpretant of every sign. (EP 2:304; 1904)
Regards,
901 - 1000 of 2278 matches
Mail list logo
