Auke, List,
AvG: First of all, no offence taken.
Glad to hear it as, of course, none was intended.
AvB: This is a nice example of a intentional and a effectual representant
standing asunder. I did not write 'nasty webmail' in response to the
content of your mail.
I would tend to agree with you
John, List:
I seem to recall a recent on-List assertion that "Peirce would cringe at
most, if not all attempts to paraphrase his thoughts." That is exactly
what the first sentence below constitutes, unless it can be supported by a
direct quotation from Peirce in which he explicitly states that a
John, List:
I appreciate the frank recognition in the last sentence below that I am *not
*"claiming to be a better semeiotician than Peirce was," simply by virtue
of reaching a few different conclusions about semeiotic than he did.
Likewise, I would never suggest that someone was claiming to be a
Jon,
When Peirce called a theory 'fallible, he did not mean
"free to make adjustments". There is a huge difference between
"free to apply to new areas" and "free to adjust (i.e.
change) the theory itself"', The first (new applications) is
"normal science" in Kuhn's terms. But the second is
Gary R,
First of all, no offence taken.
This is a nice example of a intentional and a effectual representant standing
asunder. I did not write 'nasty webmail' in response to the content of your
mail. Always nice to see a native writer toying around with words. Jon Awbry is
a master at it. I
Auke,
I apologize for appearing to be 'nasty' in my recent post addressed to you.
I didn't mean to be while, admittedly, meaning to "pull your leg" a bit as
the English idiom would have it. I should have learned long ago that it's
near impossible to get humor across in an email and clearly my
Edwina and Jon,
Induction always begins with data -- a set of
observations about some subject. By finding analogies and commonalities
among the observations, it derives a probable hypothesis about the
subject matter. Further testing is necessary to increase the probability
and generalize
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - I'm not sure if the point is that one 'is' either focused
on theory OR pragmatics.
My view is that I don't see how one can be slotted into such an
Either-Or scenario. That is, if one is interested
Nasty webmail.
Gary R,
With that you do not earn the box. It are not my heat lightnings (see below the
Hausman quote) you utilized.
The qualisign aspect is a medad or collection of medads brought together by the
mind in the pure icon, the icon being not caused by the medads themselves, but
Auke, list,
What is funny -- in the sense not of your 'hilarious', but of my 'strange'
-- is that well over a decade ago on this list I used the same
example, an "im[p]ression
of green the moment I look at the trees out of my window," (well, in truth,
my impression(s) occurred as one late Spring
Jon Alan Schmidt quoted Gary Fuhrman and then wrote:
GF: Maybe I’m just not equipped to think like a mathematician about
semiosis.
JAS: And maybe--even probably--I am just not equipped to think like a
special (physical or psychical) scientist about semeiosis. Inquiry
benefits from both
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS - I think you've missed my point.
I wasn't critiquing 'consistent terminology' or the three-step
method of developing hypotheses. And I certainly don't see textual
references as an inductive method of
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - I think there are two issues here. We can see that the
meaning of the Peircean terms remains debatable - since there is no
'full agreement' on the meaning of the terms. I don't know if there
will ever be a final
Jon Alan Schmidt concluded:
We have to distinguish the quality *in itself* as a real possibility (1ns)
from both its inherence in something that exists (2ns) and our physical
sensation of it (also 2ns), as well as our perceptual judgments about it
(3ns) and any subsequent reasoning about it (also
Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
In my view--and evidently Peirce's, as well (CP 2.219-226, EP 2:263-366,
1903)--consistent terminology fosters greater clarity, especially when
comparing results from different fields that "are talking about the same
[or similar] processes." [And we can and should]
John, Auke, List:
I agree that the conclusions of semeiotic are "eminently fallible," as
Peirce himself described them. That is why we are not locked into
treating *his
*speculative grammar as rigid dogma but are free to make adjustments that
we deem appropriate in accordance with the results of
Edwina, List:
As with any scientific inquiry, in speculative grammar we employ
retroduction to formulate hypotheses, deduction to explicate them, and
induction to evaluate them. I admittedly tend to concentrate mainly on the
first two steps, but still proceed to the third one at times; e.g., to
Gary F., List:
GF: I simply find myself unable to come up with an individual experience
that could be referred to as a “sign token” and has no context.
Indeed, all our individual *experiences *with individual sign tokens have
real contexts. Speculative grammar *abstracts *from those different
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
Edwina, Gary F, Jon AS,
ET> My question about
'pure theorizing' so to speak, also arises from the quote below: "Now
the whole process of development among the community of students of
those formulations by abstractive observation and reasoning of the
truths which must hold good of
all signs
o egg in your (and
Robert’s) nest.
Gary f.
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 1-May-20 20:56
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was
tree-structure)
Gary F., List:
GF: First, in the real world there is no disembodied
: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: 1-May-20 20:56
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was tree-structure)
Gary F., List:
GF: First, in the real world there is no disembodied mind and no disembodied
semiosis. Hence there is no context-free semiosis.
I
Gary F., List:
GF: First, in the real world there is no disembodied mind and no
disembodied semiosis. Hence there is no context-free semiosis.
I agree, but as I stated, "My purpose is to analyze the process of
semeiosis *in general*"; i.e., the aspects of semeiosis that are operative
in *every
the
> analysis of an individual sign token” I really have no idea what you’re
> talking about.
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> From: Jon Alan Schmidt
> Sent: 30-Apr-20 21:31
> To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (w
idt
Sent: 30-Apr-20 21:31
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Different Semeiotic Analyses (was tree-structure)
Auke, Gary F., List:
I think it is clear by now that we indeed have different purposes for our
analyses, and I continue to believe that this is why we reach
Jon AS, Gary F, and Auke,
Jon's recent note shows a serious failure
in communication:
JAS> To be honest, none of this [a quotation by
Auke] makes much sense to me, which is not to say that it is
incorrect--again, I suspect that it simply reflects my different purpose,
different standpoint,
Auke, Gary F., List:
I think it is clear by now that we indeed have different purposes for our
analyses, and I continue to believe that this is why we reach different
conclusions, which are not necessarily conflicting such that someone must
be "wrong." Auke's stated purpose is "to semiotically
27 matches
Mail list logo
