Jon, list,
Jon quoted me quoting a comment of his and my reply to that comment, then
further remarked:
JAS: How can we fruitfully *discuss *phenomenology as such, or anything
else for that matter, *without *employing normative Logic as Semeiotic?
GR: As I see it, one could just as well have
Gary R., List:
JAS: How can we fruitfully *discuss *phenomenology as such, or anything
else for that matter, *without *employing normative Logic as Semeiotic?
GR: As I see it, one could just as well have written: "How can one
develop a normative semeiotic as Peirce conceived it without
Edwina, list,
IS NOT a definition of anthroposemiosis!
I don't see that a purely intellectual outline of interactions and strict
terminological definitions is 'about anthroposemiosis'. To me, the term of
'anthroposemiosis' means an analytic infrastructure capable and active in
explaining human
Jon, list,
Jon wrote: How can we fruitfully *discuss *phenomenology as such, or
anything else for that matter, *without *employing normative Logic as
Semeiotic?
Peirce would have us develop two very different sciences--phenomenology and
semeiotic--in cenocopic science within his classification
Edwina, List:
It sounds to me like we are generally in agreement.
JAS: As I have said repeatedly in defense of our terminological
discussions here, the goal is always to make our (and Peirce's) ideas clear;
but that is not an end in itself--it is simply an indispensable step toward
developing
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}List
In my view, terminological 'definitions' do not 'make our ideas
clear'. And pragmatism has nothing to do with definitions.
JAS wrote: "According to Peirce, it [note: pragmatism] is "merely
a
Gary R., Edwina, List:
GR: For example, it seems to me that the tendency recently of some,
perhaps most involved in the discussion here, to bypass phenomenology as
first cenoscopic science and to leap to its relation to logic as semeiotic
(notably, critical logic, esp. as expressed in EGs) is
an Breemen
Onderwerp: Re: RE: Re: [PEIRCE-L] was EGs and Phaneroscopy
Auke wrote: RE: I would formulate the goal not as looking for an
explanation. For me, such an enterprise ought to aid in getting
better immediate objects of the dynamical object that is being
studied. Diagrams are excel
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Gary R - thanks for your post, but I think that my concern about the
tendency on this list:
ET: I agree and am puzzled by the strong effort of some to develop
an isolate framework of the work of Peirce - a
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
supporting
and organizing the analysis, although it seems safe to assume they
always will lag behind and are incomplete. It is an aid, not an
answer.
Auke
Van: Edwina Taborsky
Verzonden: zondag 17 februari 2019 15:44
Aan: Peirce-L
; Gary Richmond
Onderwerp: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-
it
seems safe to assume they always will lag behind and are incomplete. It is an
aid, not an answer.
Auke
Van: Edwina Taborsky
Verzonden: zondag 17 februari 2019 15:44
Aan: Peirce-L ; Gary Richmond
Onderwerp: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] was EGs and Phaneroscopy
Gary R wrote:
"At
12 matches
Mail list logo
