Helmut:
Thanks for clarifying. Regarding #1, any two actualities *objectively *have
a relation.
CSP: In the metaphysical sense, *existence *is that mode of being which
consists in the resultant genuine dyadic relation of a strict individual
with all the other such individuals of the same univer
supp.: Quote from Jon Awbrey´s Inquiry to inquiry:
"As mathematical traps go, this one is hydra-headed.
I don’t know if it’s possible to put a prior restraint on the varieties of relational reduction that might be considered, but usually we are talking about either one of two types of reduc
Jon, list,
I also try to stick with Peirce. Contradictions I dont see:
1.: I dont think that social is not logical, and subjectivity versus objectivity I see not as modes of being, but of chosen point of view.
2.: With triad I have meant triadic relation, and did not claim any identity
Helmut, List:
Again, I prefer to stick with Peirce on all of this.
- A *logical *relation is *not *subjective, like *social *relationships
are; it is simply "a fact about a number of things" (CP 3.416; 1892).
- There is no "SOI triad," but a *triadic relation* between the Sign,
Object
Edwina, Jon, List,
Jon quoted Edwina, then quoted her again *as* response to her question:
ET: ... who do you think should be the authorities who decide on, as you
say, what is 'an accurate understanding of Peirce's work'?
JAS: You answered your own question ...
ET: ... don't you think that
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS - I repeat
ET: ... who do you think should be the authorities who decide on,
as you say, what is 'an accurate understanding of Peirce's work'?
No- I didn't answer this question and I've no idea why y
Edwina, List:
ET: ... who do you think should be the authorities who decide on, as you
say, what is 'an accurate understanding of Peirce's work'?
You answered your own question ...
ET: ... don't you think that they should be allowed to read and interpret
Peirce's work on their own[?]
As I h
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}JAS - with regard to your post - who do you think should be the
authorities who decide on, as you say, what is 'an accurate
understanding of Peirce's work'??? Is there some kind of - oh, upper
level hierarchy of Peircean s
Edwina, List:
ET: ... IF this particular Peirce list itself has no interest in examining
how Peirce's work can be used in the pragmatic 'real' world - then, why am
I even bothering to wish such a thing?
The antecedent of this conditional is false. Plenty of List participants
have expressed the
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Jerry, list
Yes - I understand what you are saying - that IF this particular
Peirce list itself has no interest in examining how Peirce's work can
be used in the pragmatic 'real' world - then, why am I even bother
10 matches
Mail list logo
