to keep a line of thought on track. I also want to
have a closer look at Gary R's post in this thread . not right now though.
Gary f.
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu]
Sent: 10-Jan-18 14:19
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu; g...@gnusystems.ca
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Low
> Here are two questions:
>
> i) Does *any* of this make sense as an interpretation of Peirce's
> classification of genuine triadic relations in these essays and lectures
> written between 1896-1903--focusing on the kinds of correlates that are
> involved?
>
> ii) If it
.ca <g...@gnusystems.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 4:47:10 AM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.11
Jeff,
Many thanks for this and your other post from yesterday — both are very
helpful, to me at least, in rethinking some core semiotic issues. I hope
ev
frey Brian Downard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu]
Sent: 9-Jan-18 12:22
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.11
Gary F., List,
Let me respond to one of the major points you've raised. You say:
"This is an
olved are essential parts of the
explanations.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: g...@gnusystems.ca <g...@gnusystems.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 6:59 AM
To: peirce-l@lis
ownard [mailto:jeffrey.down...@nau.edu]
Sent: 8-Jan-18 17:41
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.11
Gary F, List,
In the "Logic of Mathematics," Peirce makes a distinction between the
general class of genuinely triadic relations, and the species tha
;>>
>>>> Gene,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes — for me it goes without saying that humans are mammals and
>>>> primates, but now that you’ve said it, I agree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: g...@gnusystems.ca <g...@gnusystems.ca>
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 3:13:25 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.11
One more c
Heraclitus] {
http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
From: Eugene Halton [mailto:eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu]
Sent: 6-Jan-18 14:13
To: Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.11
Dear Gary F,
Your comment concludes:
One more comment on Lowell 3.11 before we move on:
When we analyze a Genuine Thirdness, or the operation of a Sign, we find
Thought playing three different roles, which we might call the Firstness of
Thought (which is such as it is positively and regardless of anything
else), its Secondness
*Avatamsaka Sutra* that I quoted on my blog the other day:
>>> “There is not a single sentient being who is not fully endowed with the
>>> knowledge of the enlightened; it is just that because of deluded notions,
>>> erroneous thinking, and attachments, they are unable to realiz
lightened; it is just that because of deluded notions,
>> erroneous thinking, and attachments, they are unable to realize it.”
>>
>>
>>
>> Gary f.
>>
>>
>>
>> } The lord whose oracle is at Delphi neither speaks nor conceals, but
>> gives si
wp/ }{ *Turning Signs* gateway
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Eugene Halton [mailto:eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu]
> *Sent:* 6-Jan-18 14:13
> *To:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Subject:* RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.11
>
>
>
> Dear Gary F
] {
<http://gnusystems.ca/wp/> http://gnusystems.ca/wp/ }{ Turning Signs gateway
From: Eugene Halton [mailto:eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu]
Sent: 6-Jan-18 14:13
To: Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Lowell Lecture 3.11
Dear Gary F,
Dear Gary F,
Your comment concludes:
"That last sentence takes us to the crux of the challenge of Peircean
semiotics and Peircean phenomenology: *Experience is our only teacher* in
science, as he says elsewhere, and all of our experience is *human* experience
— yet we are tasked to “take
List - I have a different view of a few concepts referred to in the
last few posts.
1] I consider that 'Degenerate Secondness' - or Secondness
functioning within the mode of Firstness is not a 'dyadic relation'
between the material object of a cat and the word 'cat' . To me,
Gary R, I think that’s a good exposition of the “reference” issues, including
some aspects of the matter that I hadn’t thought of.
This is heartening because I find it difficult to write about these
‘categorial’ issues as they are presented in Lowell 3 — difficult because they
take us back
Gary f, list,
All of this is *very* interesting both from the standpoints of
phenomenology and of semiotics (and, it would seem, how they necessarily
involve each other). I don't know whether I have anything much to add to
what you've already written, but first let me see if I fully grasp your
List,
Peirces recursive application of the categories seems to reach a climax
with the Firstness of Thirdness here, as he tells us that the slight
glimpse into phenomenology given so far in this lecture is intended merely
to lead up to Thirdness and to the particular kind and aspect of
that’s my only
> suggestion, and *only* my suggestion.
>
>
>
> Gary f.
>
>
>
> *From:* Stephen C. Rose [mailto:stever...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 3-Jan-18 12:47
> *To:* Gary Fuhrman <g...@gnusystems.ca>
> *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
> *Su
I do not understand how these designations have any fixed or even useful
purpose apart from whatever the First may be. It seems to me that the First
determines what follows just as the sum of First and Second impacts and is
changed by the Third. The designation of three aspects of the third seems
Continuing from Lowell Lecture 3.10,
https://fromthepage.com/jeffdown1/c-s-peirce-manuscripts/ms-464-465-1903-low
ell-lecture-iii-3rd-draught/display/13928 :
[CP 1.533] To express the Firstness of Thirdness, the peculiar flavor or
color of mediation, we have no really good word. Mentality
22 matches
Mail list logo
