Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

CLARK GOBLE kirjoitti 4.7.2016 07:53: On Jul 2, 2016, at 5:58 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: KiM: It seems to me you evade Jerry's question, Clark. A very sensible question to me, well worth an answer to the question, not just beside it. CG: I’m not sure I was evading it so much as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jul 2, 2016, at 5:58 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > It seems to me you evade Jerry's question, Clark. A very sensible question to > me, well worth an answer to the question, not just beside it. I’m not sure I was evading it so much as explaining why I’m not sure it’s easy to answer

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Clark, Jerry R., list, It seems to me you evade Jerry's question, Clark. A very sensible question to me, well worth an answer to the question, not just beside it. As we all know, CSP took himself to be a laboratory minded philosopher, in contrast with seminary minded philosophers. That is,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Jon, list: You said, "Still, I wonder--is it proper to treat CP 5.189 as THE definitive statement of how abduction works? Or does that risk becoming the kind of dogmatism that Peirce typically decried?" Great question! It is to ask whether CP 5.189 is eternal, since at least some things are

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Jerry R., List: JR: *Is CP 5.189 his lanterna pedibus, the light to guide our researches? * JR: Should we adopt it more consciously at the outset for discussion of dark questions, despite its characterization as heuristic: JR: “This is an *imperfect view* of the application which the

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Strauss says, that "a pious man will therefore not investigate the divine things", because "the gods do not approve..." (of that). But how does Strauss know, that the gods do not approve? He must have investigated the divine things to know that, and also, that there is more than one God, as he

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > > Thank you for that earnest answer. The reason why I asked whether you > thought what I said was religious or theological was to ask about your > reaction to its systematicity. Whichever word stands for more systematic,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Dear Peirce List, Altho the distinction between immediate and dynamic object, as well as the theological implications (Peirce abstained from), both enrich the conversation, I see Peirce’s observations about the copula as iconoclastic. That is, they bring closure to all of the old-school

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Hi Clark, I'm mainly curious. Do you find my previous writing to be religious or theological? For instance, if I were to ask "what would God be?", would that question not fit neatly into the previous argumentation? Thanks, Jerry R On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:29 PM, CLARK GOBLE

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 2:22 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > > Copula is the Holy Spirit or, copula is the network that connects the subject > with the predicate in unity in the form of a symbol that gives > meaning/understanding. > I’ll leave the religious discussions for

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jun 30, 2016, at 10:19 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > [BU] On averageness as a background needed to make communication (and > informative difference) possible, you wrote, > > >[CG] At which point the term “average” has become rather distorted. > > [BU] I think that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Clark, list, [BU] On averageness as a background needed to make communication (and informative difference) possible, you wrote, >[CG] At which point the term “average” has become rather distorted. [BU] I think that you're getting to the point where you might as well be talking simply

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Dear list: Side by side with others: Can we label immediate interpretant, sign, object, coming to agreement, idea, truth, final interpretant, copula, etc., in this sequence? "The “what is” questions point to “essences,” to “essential” differences- to the fact that the whole consists of parts

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> So "being" seems to be a quite boiled-down concept. "Truth" on the other hand > is a concept, that should not be boiled down like that in my opinion. I’m not sure I agree with that. It seems to me being for Peirce (and what I tend to think) being is tied to this relation of the dynamic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jun 29, 2016, at 10:37 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > Immediate objects may have averageness but the averageness seems not > definitive of them, and Peirce never makes it so. It seems to me (perhaps incorrectly) that Peirce raises everydayness for similar reasons to

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Clark, list, Sorry, I got busy for a while. Immediate objects may have averageness but the averageness seems not definitive of them, and Peirce never makes it so. They may also have distinctiveness; an unusual characteristic, perhaps displayed at an unusual moment, might be a prominent part

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

I think, what is (being), as far as I have understood it from this thread, is about "all who investigate", as a subject is a being, when it has a predicate added. So, one person or one observer, maybe one impersonal sign recipient, a molecule or a particle, can be "all who investigate", like an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 4:56 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > I think, your posts have made the problem of the term "average" clear. Am I > right with understanding it like: "Average" usually suggests a completed > statistical calculation, and statistics is mathematics, therefore

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Jerry, Clark, All, I think, your posts have made the problem of the term "average" clear. Am I right with understanding it like: "Average" usually suggests a completed statistical calculation, and statistics is mathematics, therefore exact logic. But in our context, "average" is not meant for an

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Hi all, How about entering into inquiry of a situation, a particular situation. That situation will have a set of communications associated with it. But that situation is only one situation of many possible situations. And what we want to know is how it will play out in the next instance. That

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

    supplement: assuming that the definition of "average" as "agreed-about aspect" is viable, then it would be appliable for information flow in the technical sense as well, like, the technically achieved agrrement for example might be, that a voltage between zero and one volt is agreed to be a

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

List, I guess, what is meant by "average", can be explained with what Jeffrey wrote three or four posts before: " What role, if any, does the conception of a mean, or an average, or a normal, play in the account of being when he says: "We do not obtain the conception of Being, in the sense

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jun 24, 2016, at 1:42 PM, John Collier wrote: > > OK, this seems better to me, especially in communication among people, but I > still resist the idea that the immediate object is generally an average in > any sense. My problem is trying to fit that idea into my

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: Friday, 24 June 2016 8:48 PM To: Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@LIST.IUPUI.EDU> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being I think this notion of “true in the main” is more or less what average means relative to the immediate object. It’s not

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 12:14 PM, Benjamin Udell > wrote: > > Peirce somewhere talks about taking a companion's experience as one's own, > say, if the companion has better eyesight. The companion reports discerning a > ship on the horizon, while

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > Wouldn't it make things clearer if we, like Peirce, made a distinction > between the immediate object conceived of as a possibility, or as an > actuality, or as a necessity? On the basis of this modal

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

e care. --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Benjamin Udell [baud...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2016 11:14 AM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jun 23, 2016, at 2:16 AM, John Collier wrote: > > The “average” notion is distinctly misleading. Suggests an external averager > that does not exist. It is an abstraction at best, and typically ignores > aspects of the dynamics object (but I think could even get it

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

for this to happen) John Collier Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate University of KwaZulu-Natal http://web.ncf.ca/collier From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] Sent: Thursday, 23 June 2016 12:07 AM To: Peirce-L <PEIRCE-L@LIST.IUPUI.EDU> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jun 22, 2016, at 1:10 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > >i. Immediate object: the object as represented in the sign [DELETE], a > kind of statistical, "average" version of the given object [END DELETE. Gary > Richmond, as I recall, convinced me that my text there was

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

Clark, list, Those seem to be passages from the Wikipedia Charles Sanders Peirce article or the Wikipedia Semiotic elements and classes of signs article in the form that they had some years ago as a result of my edits. Two of the paragraphs were already there, written by I don't know who,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

> On Jun 21, 2016, at 1:55 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > One interesting think in Parker’s book is the cosmological element in the > development of the categories. Whoops. One interesting thing… LOL. Sorry for all the typos. I wrote that quickly. Hopefully I don’t

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Copula and Being

(Hope you don’t mind — since this is primarily related to the copula I put it under the other thread) > On Jun 21, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > > In your response, there's no mention of the object that is outside of us, and > in my opinion, no respect for what