; I suggest that offering supporting arguments for one's claims is more
> likely to foster substantive discussion than merely making assertions and
> allegations.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon S.
>
> On Tue, Jun 22, 2021 at 1:41 AM Auke van Breemen <
> peirce-
phaneroscopy. Occupied with tha
phaneron only, we still have to take the step of consciousness of
objects-referred-to and consciousness of interaction.
Auke
Oorspronkelijk bericht --
Van: Auke van Breemen
Aan: Jon Alan Schmidt , peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Datum: 21 juni 2021 om 22:34
Gary F.
I think your next step is a little premature since there are still some
unsettled questions regarding the slow read of the former sheet. Unless of
course the method of tenacity is entertained, in that case you are justified to
hurry up.
Auke
> Op 21 juni 2021 om 23:34 schreef
Gary,
Why consciousness and not awareness or apperception? Those terms seem more
adequate for the situation.
Auke
> Op 21 juni 2021 om 23:05 schreef Gary Richmond :
>
> Jon, Helmut, List,
>
> Thank you for correcting me, Jon. Yes, 1ns/2ns/3ns of consciousness. My
> error.
>
>
Jon,
Instead of consciousness I would prefer awareness or, maybe still better,
apperception (in the sense of leibniz) but for the remainder it is a good
correction of Gary R's erronous response to Helmut and I think in line with the
intention of Helmuts remark.
Auke
> Op 21 juni 2021 om
Jon,
You wrote:
In our current context, I fully agree that we are each making "good faith
attempts to arrive at a terminology we can serviceably use in discussing
Peirce's phaneroscopic practice."
--
1
Please specify current context. I get the impresion that context ought to be
interpreted
Gary R,
You wrote:
> Nevertheless, your other points are well-taken. Even in speculative
> grammar, Peirce replaces qualisign/sinsign/legisign (1903) with
> tone/token/type (1906-1908) and experiments further with alternatives for
> "tone." However, most of that is in unpublished
d
> is in conflict with anything Peirce said on the subject.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu
> On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
> Sent: 19-Jun-21 09:18
> To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> S
t;
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Auke van Breemen
> Sent: 19-Jun-21 04:06
> To: g...@gnusystems.ca; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] André De Tienne: Slow Read slide 4
>
>
>
> I think I never had you. So how
the exact definition of "science", so ok, I guess,
> phaneroscopy may be called a science. Setting closer borders of "regard"
> helps to not miss something.
>
> Did I get everything ok?
>
> Best
>
> Helmut
>
>
>
>
&
John,
Good points. You might be interested in Ramchandran and Hirstein's : Three laws
of Qualia.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233684568_Three_laws_of_qualia_What_neurology_tells_us_about_the_biological_functions_of_consciousness
Auke
> Op 19 juni 2021 om 5:36 schreef "John F.
; connection with phaneroscopy, and give some examples, but that probably
> wouldn’t answer your question either, so I’ll have to leave it at that.
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu
> On Behalf Of Auke van Breemen
> Sent: 18-Jun-21 14:3
develop a clear and
> distinct idea of what the science is that Peirce called phenomenology or
> phaneroscopy.
>
> I hope this helps …
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: peirce-l-requ...@list.iupui.edu
> On Behalf Of Auke
Gary, List
I wrote:
Or the veracity of a pheneroscopic excercize.
--
You wrote:
“Veracity” does not apply to it in the way it does to a proposition, because
what is predominant in phaneroscopy is not Secondness but Firstness.
--
In my non native estimate the word veracity applies to
of being-in-control, but the dynamic object of science, namely,
> > reality - has been lost - within all the unconnected immediate objects
> > entrapped in each classification.
> >
> > Edwina
> >
> > On Wed 16/06/21 3:54 AM , "Auke van Breem
Jon,
You wrote:
It is not just the method of analysis that is different for each science within
Peirce's classification, but also the object of study. Phaneroscopy examines
whatever is or could be present to the mind. Semeiotic studies only signs and
semiosis.
--
The dynamical object of
Edwina, Jon,
I disagree with both of you. With ET because yes that is possible. With Jon,
no, it may be the same dynamical object.
I always liked the distinction between formal and material object. Both
phenomenology and semiotics have the same material object, but differ in formal
object,
CSP: But a pure picture without a legend only
> > says " something is like this." True he attaches what amounts to a legend.
> > But that only makes his sentence analogous to a portrait we will say of
> > Leopardi with Leopardi written below it. It conveys it
Cathy,
Gary must speak for himself, but I like the way in which you exemplfy the
'without legend or label' part of Peirce's determination of a painting as a
hypericon.
best,
Auke van Breemen
> Op 15 juni 2021 om 17:26 schreef Synechism Center :
>
> Gary R, List,
>
>
Jerry,
I think you did hit the weak spot:
> But, I will save you the time and effort and suggest that the term
> “equivalence” as you used it in the sentence:
>
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > JFS> In mathematics and logic, equivalence means freely
> > >
> Op 1 februari 2021 om 17:03 schreef Helmut Raulien :
>
> Auke, Jon, John, Edwina, All,
>
> I don´t see, that a transparent universe is the critical point: Jon A.S.´
> example is valid in a transparent universe too:
>
Helmut,
The point is not if Jon's example is valid in a
John,
This part of the article Edwina send is relevant:
It follows that logic, in Peirce’s illative, ecstatic sense, is better
understood as an
inductive rather than a deductive science, for the ampliative work of inductive
inference
better exemplifies, in a richer, fuller sense, the
John,
Let's take the sequence from the architecture of science: math. logic,
phenomenology, semiotics, critical logic, ... , methaphysics. You assume that
my remarks concern the interval logic ... methaphysics. That however was not
the object of my remarks. My remarks concerned the interval
John,
During your repeated debates with Jon an experience I had as a freshman
philosophy kept knocking at my doors of perception. It was the first meeting in
which each of the students had to read a passage of Hegels logic. I was the
first to read and started with the first alinea in which
John,
I was thinking in terms of goals, i.e. what is the object you try to
understand, not credentials. I can connect Jon's answer to my question with his
line of reasoning and I did like that. Their might be differences in the goals
and then it is always better to asses and value the
From the list perspective:
Jas wrote:
I have said it before, I will say it again--we have different purposes, so we
reach different conclusions.
--
Since perspective is important, it might be a good idea to explicate the
differences in purpose each of you entertain.
best,
Auke
> Op 24
John,
> Op 30 augustus 2020 om 20:55 schreef "John F. Sowa" :
>
>
> Auke, I agree with you about the issues and priorities.
>
> AvB> Peirce is multi facetted. Each of us looks from a particular
> angle... I am not interested in what might be the final version Peirce wrote
> on the
ier writings as "irrelevant and
> obsolete." Such an approach would be no more legitimate than relying
> entirely on earlier passages and ignoring the later ones.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Structural Engineer, Synechist Philoso
John, Jon Alen, list,
I am not interested in what might be the final version Peirce wrote on the
negation vs scroll isue. Even if John is right, the interesting point that
remains is not the actual history of Peirce's thought, but the systematic
problem it poses. It remainds me of Hempels
John,
Thanks for the Eisele pdf. I did like this ms fragment very much:
Further, "It is not so much the history of science as it is the history of
sound scientific thinking which I am considering" [Peirce MS 12801.
--
It seems to come down to: never consider the textual production of a
; > actually exist for more than a nanosecond, and, to reproduce as types
> > [whether as chemical molecules or as cells].
> >
> > Firstness continues within Thirdness; and therefore, there cannot
> > be a final state of pure habits.
> >
> >
; new habits, intellectual life would come to a speedy close" But - Peirce
> reminds us that 'There always remains a certain amount of spontaneity in its
> action, without which it would be dead" 6.148.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
> On Fri 26/06/20 7:30 AM , Au
John,
A good summary of Peirce's take on esthetics is to be found at:
http://www.signosemio.com/peirce/esthetics.asp
A nice feat of the description is that it contains some fine remarks on
Peirce's conception of God.
In the end, I think, that Peirce could regard any work on art less feeble
> an exertion, or to a Sign, which determination is the Interpretant. (CP
> 4.536, 1906)
> >
> > >
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran
> Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in
Jon Alen,
Just to avoid misunderstanding.
JAS: As I have made clear in multiple previous posts, I do not consider the
emotional/energetic/logical interpretants to be the same as the
immediate/dynamical/final interpretants.
I never suggested that I do consider them the same and did not notice
failed
> Op 16 juni 2020 om 3:42 schreef Jon Awbrey mailto:jawb...@att.net >:
>
>
> Test • Please Ignore
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> ► 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
y sign has a
> conditionally necessary (final) interpretant, and thus a possible (immediate)
> interpretant, even if it never has an actual (dynamical) interpretant because
> there does not happen to be an interpreter present to be determined by it.
>
> Regards,
&g
term
> commens precisely because it was (and is) not in common use. Appropriating
> Peirce’s technical term to evoke the broader concept of the commons invites
> confusion by reading into Peirce a conception that is only vaguely related to
> the context of his argument.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
&
Jon Alen,
> That is an opinion, and even if valid, it does not change the fact that
> Peirce invented and defined "the commens." I find it misleading to use his
> peculiar term to mean something else.
>
>
Isn't our duscussion about the meaning of a particular term, i.e. commens?
Jon Alen, Robert, Edwina, John, List,
RM: We need the commens here to "contain" all these conventions and therefore
it cannot depend on the only minds that communicate; it is out of minds. We
discover it when we are born and then internalize it throughout our lives.
JAS: Again, there may
Jon Alen, Robert, Edwina, John, List,
> RM: We need the commens here to "contain" all these conventions and
> therefore it cannot depend on the only minds that communicate; it is out of
> minds. We discover it when we are born and then internalize it throughout our
> lives.
>
JAS: Again,
Jon Alen,
you wrote: I continue to stand by my own definitions.
Own definitions? I only see citations.
You wrote: I am really trying to understand both the system and the process.
My question: is the text you wrote (see just below) in the same paragraph
indicating your process view?
John,
Thanks for this info. I came to this conclusion by analyzing the 8th signtype
(rhematic, symbolic, legisign) from the point of view of KiF. ()= involvement.
The outer brackets signify that the process is not yet finished. It just are
fragments of what is involved in the proces: sheet,
Jon Alen,
You cite:
CSP: I do not mean by "collateral observation" acquaintance with the system of
signs. What is so gathered is not COLLATERAL. It is on the contrary the
prerequisite for getting any idea signified by the Sign. (CP 8.179, EP 2:494,
1909)
and continue:
The immediate
Jon Alen,
I do not even need to read te second and third alinea of your post. Of course
Short is right in this view. But that is trivial and not in conflict with my
statement. It simply follows from the difference in viewpoint: type vs process.
And to be frank I think it is better to leave
Edwina, list,
That is a debated issue. Bergman did summarize the main positions: Fitzgerald,
Short and Zeman.
In my opinion the logical interpretant of the emotional, energetic, logical
sequence is a placeholder for the other triplet. Van Driel was the first to
write this, but without
John,
I agree with your broadening up the seeming dichotomy to an open ended
diversity. But I suggest to go all the way; also within a science we find
different angles on the same subjectmatter. Semiotics not being excluded.
But, I think there is a second current to be aware of in our
Robert,
A clear statement, thanks. I have but one remark. You wrote:
RM: I begin with a short history that will show that the state of the
relationship between proponents of methods described as empirical and those of
mathematical methods is not good.
--
You go on to describe your
Bernard (nice to hear from you), Robert, list,
BM: As to the length your paper makes me shift in opinion : 3, 6 or 10 is
probably a
question of the required accuracy for the expected usage of the
generated sign classes
--
A nice observation, Bernard.
Robert, Is this what I ought to or could
lay a little game that, sadly, went bad.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary
>
>
>
>
> "Time is not a renewable resource." gnox
>
>
>
> Gary Richmond
> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
> Communication Studies
> LaG
gnox
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 4:29 AM Auke van Breemen < a.bree...@upcmail.nl
mailto:a.bree...@upcmail.nl > wrote:
Gary R,
Don't miss the distinction between q
John, Edwina, list,
looking at the subject line:
I did introduce the nonagons in my reply to Jon Alan because I think that
besides discussing theory with the help of examples, in order to stay grounded,
it is needed to look from what perspective and with what interest we discuss
the
eer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran
> Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
> -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 8:47 AM Auke van Breemen < a.bree...@chello.nl
> mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote:
>
> > >
>
Gary F. John, list,
Gary, I agree. But think you are to hard on John.
It does make sense to look at a token. I did it multiple times with art
students, comparing two stages in their design process, sign aspect after sign
aspect. Always with the qustion: why is the latter better, then the
Jon Alan, List,
I think that by now our discussion about interpretants has been carried trough
to a sufficient degree. In the sense that the respective positions have been
clarified as far as possible and no further gain is to be expected.
Yust one note about doubt supposed to be a habit. The
Gary F.
Much better detailed and disentangled from the dispute going on about the role
of a 'reality' test in doing semiotics. I think we are in agreement.
Auke
> Op 30 april 2020 om 16:02 schreef g...@gnusystems.ca:
>
>
> I think I’m in agreement with what Auke says here, but would
Best,
Auke
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran
Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
-http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 3:55 AM Auke van Breemen < a.bree...@chello.nl
mailto:a.bree...@ch
Apr 29, 2020 at 2:00 AM < a.bree...@chello.nl
> mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote:
>
> > >
> > Of lately I work with webmail and that puts in another adress. So,
> > with delay my response to Jon Alan.
> >
> > > Oorspronkelijk bericht -
different.
Best,
Auke
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran
Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
-http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 3:55 AM Auke van Breemen < a.bree...@chello.nl
mailto:a.b
Jon Alen,
> while I indeed consider signs to be iconic/indexical/symbolic rather than
> pure icons/indices/symbols,
>
re: I think we need to consider them from both angles. If we deal with
interpretation processes we need the pure ones. The are needed to cover the
apprehension of the
Of lately I work with webmail and that puts in another adress. So, with delay
my response to Jon Alan.
Oorspronkelijk bericht --
Van: Auke van Breemen
Aan: Peirce-L
Datum: 27 april 2020 om 10:30
Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Fwd: an observation
Jon Alen,
You wrote: Thanks
t;
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran
> Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
> -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
>
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 8:02 AM Auke van Breemen < a.bree...@chello.nl
&g
l is nothing more
> or less than an attempt to block the road of inquiry.
>
> Gary f.
>
> } Owing to general causes, logic always must be far behind the practice
> of leading minds. [Peirce, BD ’Method’] {
>
> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ http://gnusystem
Gary, List,
Well, this is nice meat for a semioticean. How is such a misunderstanding
possible?
For me the sliver pertains to John and the girder to JAS.
It is JAS who on the one hand demands literal quotes (which belongs to text
exegesis) but on the other avoids the meat (i.e. doing
List,
I got flabbergasted reading JAS response to John.
It proves possible to tenaciously stick to the authoritarian method in order to
uphold one's own a priori principles.
But only at the price of disregarding or disqualifying a lot of what has been
written by the authority.
As my
,
and thus also not about the means in reaching it. This does not exclude us to
have profitted from it, looked at from the goal each of us entertains.
Best,
Auke van Breemen
Regards,
Jon S.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 2:00 AM < a.bree...@chello.nl
mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl > wrote:
Jon Alan
> > > interpretants in: Logic Notebook entry dated 8 oct. 1905; Ms 339 p. 253r
> > > >
> > > > > > > But Peirce again identifies exactly
> > > > three interpretants on that manuscript page
> > > > https://r
e for the interpretant relations--"Mode of Affecting Dynamic
> Interp." (S-Id), which is "By Sympathy," "By Compulsion," or "By Reason";
> "Mode of being represented by Representative Interpretant" (S-If); and "Mode
> of being represen
tant
> is a habit of feeling (emotional), action (energetic), or thought (logical).
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran
> Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
> -http://twitter.
Jon Alan,
JAS: Understood, although I consider the subject matter of my previous
post to be metaphysics rather than religion.
As I pointed out elsewhere our representative interpretants differ
considerably. For me theology is the study dealing with God. It is one of the
this interpreter. But still needed the representative
> > content to enter the argument, being put under the general rule of
> > inference (representational interpretant) and judged on its truth value
> > (normal i). It indicates a moment in a process of interpretation.
> >
>
ly) follows
> from them to complete the syllogism is that the entire universe is determined
> by an object other than itself; again, something that is independent of and
> unaffected by the entire universe. I suggest that this is what we call God,
> echoing the Five Ways o
Jon Alan,
Since it proves a recurrent theme, I suggest we ought to try to find out what
exactly is the meaning you attribute to the concept of God.
You wrote:
God as the real and independent object that determines the entire universe as a
sign.
--
And earlier you cited:
As for scale, he
Jon Alan,
I decided to insert our technical semiotic discussion in your exchange with
Edwina. I noticed by the way that in 1. I at the end write normal where
representative is ment.
You asked:
Just to be clear, are you suggesting a direct correspondence between the
alpha/beta/gamma EGs and
tant' (aspectual) and
'dynamical interpretant response' (typical) for disambiguation pusposes.
Best regards,
Auke van Breemen
> Op 17 april 2020 om 3:20 schreef Jon Alan Schmidt :
>
> Edwina, List:
>
> It should go without saying for all my posts, but the foll
stances; namely, in the ultimate
> > > > > > > opinion after infinite inquiry by an infinite community. This
> > > > > > > indeed does not entail that it i
ical object or interpretant, and mode of presentation for the
> > > > > > immediate object or interpretant; in each case belonging to one of
> > > > > > three universes--possibles, existents, or n
t; > > Laymanhttp://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
> > > > -http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 6:03 PM < a.bree...@chello.nl
> > > >
s. And, I mean this in a very real sense. It was not just a
> > joke that Peirce also wrote: we have to choose between mamon and god. At
> > most, it is our duty to find the final interpretant, it is not an
> > inescapable end. Nature of ...? What means nature here? W
retant, it is not an inescapable end. Nature of
...? What means nature here? Without nature and with normal instead of final, I
could consider to agree. But then we are only at the level of the legisign
aspect ( the involved sign aspects included of course) or, in other wor
t means nature here? Without nature and
> > with normal instead of final, I could consider to agree. But then we are
> > only at the level of the legisign aspect ( the involved sign aspects
> > included of course) or, in other words, dealing with habits of
> > interpretation.
> >
>
nature and with normal instead of final, I
could consider to agree. But then we are only at the level of the legisign
aspect ( the involved sign aspects included of course) or, in other words,
dealing with habits of interpretation.
Best regards,
Auke van Breemen
> Op 14 april 2020 om 0
diate Interpretant is in a
> mode of 1ns; the next is 2ns - and then, using its knowledge base within the
> Representamen, the Final Interpretant in a mode of 3ns. But these are not
> linear; they are 'experiences' so to speak and more complex.
>
>
ed
> > > interactive population [ie, individuals interacting]; or 3-3 [Thirdness
> > > operating in a mode of Thirdness] - which is pure ideology detached from
> > > a population - well, I think we could analyze such a framework. Not easy
> > > of course.
d not deal with the categories in this way; instead, it
> simply too each category 'in itself' and judged how it would operate as the
> guiding principle of a society. I disagree with such a tactic for the reasons
> I already gave.
>
> Edwina
>
>
>
>
g that once the cirsis is
> resolved. I symphatize with that.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Auke van Breemen
>
>
>
> Op 7 april 2020 om 14:44 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
>
>
>
> > >
> > I disagree completely with this polit
, and taking our fallible immediate object of peirce's appraoch
conceived as a dynamical object as our utopia.
best,
Auke van Breemen
Op 21 oktober 2019 om 14:26 schreef Edwina Taborsky :
- Original Message -
From: Edwina Taborsky tabor...@primus.ca mailto:tabor...@primus.ca
and “they can usually accept lower-level facts
without creating any conflict”.
Hope this is more clearly stated.
Best,
Auke van Breemen
Van: Gary Richmond
Verzonden: maandag 1 april 2019 21:11
Aan: Peirce-L
Onderwerp: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The pragmatics of Peirce .. and its importance
Auke
ssential.
Best,
Gary
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:43 AM Auke van Breemen mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl> > wrote:
Dan, Edwina, List,
I agree
On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:43 AM Auke van Breemen mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl> > wrote:
Dan, Edwina, List,
I agree with Dan and Edwina with an however in favor of work on the semiotic
engine and its make up in the technical terms that shy off the general public.
Since I started anal
uke
Edwina
On Sat 30/03/19 11:43 AM , "Auke van Breemen" a.bree...@chello.nl
<mailto:a.bree...@chello.nl> sent:
Dan, Edwina, List,
I agree with Dan and Edwina with an however in favor of work on the semiotic
engine and its make up in the technical terms that shy off the
Dan, Edwina, List,
I agree with Dan and Edwina with an however in favor of work on the semiotic
engine and its make up in the technical terms that shy off the general public.
Since I started analyzing design processes of artist in the late 80’íes I tried
to combine an empirical bend with
Jon, List,
Gary already did a great job in furnishing arguments in favor of keeping in
mind, that talk about signs of course can be done shorthand, but that it is
wise to keep in mind the other relata, if the focus is on one of them.
Jon, I do not know where your idea comes form, i.e.
John, List,
Regarding:
JAS
> Drawing attention to something actual is denoting that Object, which
> is the function of an Index (EP 2:306-307; 1904); and a Rheme
> obviously can be an Index, so it is false that a Rheme "can refer only
> to possible objects."
No. A rheme is never an index.
I
date for a normative import
would be esthetics, but then we already are contemplating the sign in relation
to a possible interpreter, hence an interpretant thought. I think it is this
Gary F. is thinking about.
Best,
Auke van Breemen
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansa
d the lack of an ability for
compassion. With both I disagree. First task is to get an interest for what you
want to make clear. And, because of the variation, the decision taker must have
attention for the traits of the specific subject (s)he is judging.
I think both are interrelated.
Best,
Auke v
:
Is there a difference in the way you try to establish contact and teach that
depends on the hypothesis you work with?
Case 1: it is a problem with the imagination or mimicking of action
Case 2: it is a problem with the directing of attention
Best,
Auke van Breemen
Van: Jerry Rhee
. The adaptability to circumstances is seriously hindered in this
way. And indeed, as you state, it appears as an inability to mimic social
wished behavior. Until, that is, one succeeds in getting attention for the
social problems, in that case a social scientist may be the result.
Best,
Auke van Breemen
go
together with a plan for action that delivers a solution.
Best,
Auke van Breemen
Van: Edwina Taborsky
Verzonden: zondag 17 februari 2019 17:06
Aan: tabor...@primus.ca; 'Peirce-L' ; 'Gary Richmond'
; Auke van Breemen
Onderwerp: Re: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] was EGs and Phaneroscopy
Edwina, list,
E wrote:
I agree and am puzzled by the strong effort of some to develop an isolate
framework of the work of Peirce - a particular framework based around a purely
intellectual outline of interactions and strict terminological definitions
which in my opinion both utterly miss
1 - 100 of 142 matches
Mail list logo
