I am pretty sure Peirce would disagree. For Peirce the entire universe (and
by that he means something far beyond the mere "existent" universe) "is
perfused with signs, if not composed exclusively of signs." See, e.g., "The
Basis of Pragmaticism in the Normative Sciences" in EP2.
Sincerely,
Cre
Some short reply. To set
things straight, I am not a Dr. My title is Drs, it is for completing my
university studies. I might get the other one in about 2 months, but do not
have the right to use that one yet. I am sure signs can not operate, even not
exist, without living beings. To create
Joe writes (about New Elements):
[[ Overall, I find the rationale of it baffling. It is not a complete
paper
of course, but even considered as only an intended preface to a book on
the
logic of mathematics, it is seems puzzlingly incomplete, at the least.
Why
does he start off with the the
Of course, not to restart an old debate... I am curious about how the
following lines are going to be interpreted:
"We have a direct knowledge of real objects in every experiential
reaction, whether of /Perception/ or of /Exertion/ (the one theoretical,
the other practical). These are direct
Dear Gary,
Yes that seems so to me -- symbols like laws
are general. They are what binds the ephemeral here and now.
I'm trying to come up with a thoughtful reponse to Dr Berendsen's earlier
comment that we are the engines of interpretation. In one sense I agree
and in another I'm not
Joe writes (about New Elements):
[[ Overall, I find the rationale of it baffling. It is not a complete paper
of course, but even considered as only an intended preface to a book on the
logic of mathematics, it is seems puzzlingly incomplete, at the least. Why
does he start off with the theory
Jean-Marc says:
Of course, not to restart an old debate... I am curious about how the
following lines are going to be interpreted:
"We have a direct knowledge of real objects in every experiential
reaction, whether of /Perception/ or of /Exertion/ (the one theoretical,
the other practical). These
Jim, list,
I've moved my comments from the Research & Learning vs Teaching to
this thread since most of the text I've quoted below is
from the New Elements. Responding to a Peirce snippet I copied, viz.
In order to convince ourselves that all
learning is virtually reasoning, we have only to r
Hello all,
As I enlisted here some week ago or so and also made some posting today, I
will now also give some short introduction about myself.
So, I am Dutch. 32 years old. Have followed some long education, mainly in
management. Specialism first in logistics, bachelor level. Then I entered
unive
Gary,
Welcome to the list. The New Elements discussion has barely
begun so don't worry too much about having interrupted it. I too am
looking forward to it getting under way since, like you and apparently
several others, I too find the Kaina Stoicheia piece profound.
I enjoyed looking at your
I don't want to interrupt the discussion of New Elements here, but as a new
subscriber i understand it's good form to introduce myself to the forum.
I'll confine myself to a brief description of the path that brought me here.
I've had a lifelong but non-specialist interest in mind, cognition, lang
Joseph Ransdell wrote:
I finally got a transcription of the New Elements manuscript of 1904 up at
Arisbe. I thought we might try figuring out what is going on there. If you
have a copy of Volume 2 of the Essential Peirce you already have a copy of
it, but it is helpful to have it in digitize
Actually, we are the engine of interpretation. Without us interpretation
does not exist. Because, interpretation is only possible through thoughts.
Peirce himself is telling something about conceptions, f.i. with the
following statement: "consider what effects, which might conceivably have
practic
13 matches
Mail list logo
