Edwina,
When I was talking about model-relative theories of reality, I
was definitely *not* advocating a kind of cognitive relativism.
> we have to consider that some models more accurately represent this
external reality than others - and also, Peirce did feel that we could,
among the
Edwina,
I agree with that point, and I believe that Peirce would
too:
> we have to consider that some models more accurately
represent this external reality than others - and also, Peirce did feel
that we could, among the 'community of scholars', over time - reach a more
and more accurate
Jeff, Jon, Dan...
For the past few months, I have been busy with
some critical deadlines and activities that limited my participation in
email discussions. But I'd like to comment on the many possible views of
reality.
Two points by Peirce:
1. Reality is independent of
anything we may think
List:
Prescissive facts are *signified *by propositions (as predicates), while
abstract qualities and concrete things are *denoted *by terms (as
subjects). Put another way, when we say that a true proposition *represents
*a fact, what we mean is not that a fact is its *object*, but that a fact
List:
Combining what I wrote below about sequence with my earlier observation
that both semeiosis and time conform to Gary R.'s vector of
*determination *(2ns→1ns→3ns,
object→sign→interpretant, past→present→future) prompts some additional
suggestions. Peirce's speculative grammar posits an
523-8354
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 9:23:49 AM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time
Jeff, List:
How can time be hyperbolic, yet return into itself? The answer is found in
projective geometry, which
Jeff, List:
JD: As Peirce points out in the 8th Cambridge Conferences Lecture in
RLT, the self-returning character of a space or time manifold is a
topological character of unbounded manifolds generally. We don't need to
add in postulates concerning straightness and a line called the absolute
ds
>> back from the infinite future to the infinite past, it evidently proceeds
>> by contraries. 8.316
>>
>> Focusing on the points made in 3 and 4, how might we understand the
>> contrast being made between *our* side of things, and the part of time
>> that is on the
of eternity?
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
-
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 11:37:06 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time
Hell
agram might we use to clarify the hyperbolic
evolution from the infinite past to the infinite future? Using this
diagram, what is the contrast between our side of things and the
further side of eternity?
--Jeff Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
No
nite past to the infinite future? Using this diagram, what is the contrast between our side of things and the further side of eternity?
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Sent: Wednesd
t;>> 1. I may mention that my chief avocation in the last ten years has been
>>> to develop my cosmology. This theory is that the evolution of the world is
>>> hyperbolic, that is, proceeds from one state of things in the infinite
>>> past, to a different state
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
-
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 11:37:06 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu [5]
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time
Hello Jon, List,
At the beginn
ome absolute spontaneity counter to all law, and some degree of conformity
>> to law, which is constantly on the increase owing to the growth of habit.
>>
>> 4. As to the part of time on the further side of eternity which leads back
>> from the infinite future to the infinite p
the contrast between our side of things and the further side of eternity?
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 11:37:06 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iup
ofessor
> Department of Philosophy
> Northern Arizona University
> (o) 928 523-8354
> --
> *From:* Jeffrey Brian Downard
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 4, 2020 11:37:06 PM
> *To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time
>
>
> --Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> Northern Arizona University
> (o) 928 523-8354
>
>
> From: Dan Everett
> Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 8:00 AM
> To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
> C
e of time, I'd be willing
> to take it up with you.
>
>
>
> --Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
> Jeffrey Downard
> Associate Professor
> Department of Philosophy
> Northern Arizona University
> (o) 928 523-8354
>
>
> From: Dan Everett
> Sent: Thursday
_
From: Dan Everett
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2020 8:00 AM
To: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Cc: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time
This is a fascinating topic and discussion. The syntax, semantics, pragmatics,
and anthropology of temporal reference in natural
From: Jeffrey Brian Downard
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2020 11:37:06 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time
Hello Jon, List,
At the beginning of the post, you note that Peirce engaged in "mathematical,
phenomenological, semeiotic, and metaphysical"
different methods.
--Jeff
Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354
From: Jon Alan Schmidt
Sent: Monday, March 2, 2020 3:56 PM
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time
L
List:
Gary Richmond, Gary Fuhrman, and I have had various lengthy off-List
exchanges over the last few months about Peirce's ideas pertaining to
time. After a lot of reading and thinking about the mathematical,
phenomenological, semeiotic, and metaphysical aspects of that topic, I
decided to
22 matches
Mail list logo
