Bill, Jim, list,
>[Bill] I pretty well agree with the following two paragraphs [by Jim, much
>further down now -- Ben]. I'd like to make some friendly amendments, however.
> I don't think one sign carries more evidential weight than another, but then
>I'm not clear on what you mean because I d
Hi!
Since I'm camping in Yosemite, I'll be away from email until Sunday night. I'll
respond to your email as soon as possible after I return.
Thanks!
Ami
Original Message:
X-Originating-IP: [129.118.152.29]
Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Authentication-Results: mta3
Ben,
I'm wondering if you are acquainted with the paper "Fourthness," by Herbert
Schneider in what has come to in the 1952 collection of essays _Studies in
the Philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce_, ed. Wiener & Young (Harvard U
Press). It is sometimes referred to retrospectively as the "First
Sorry, Ben, for the garbled message. I sent it off accidentally before
rereading it to pick up on rewordings without corresponding correction of
the syntax. The first sentence should read: I'm wondering if you are
acquainted with the paper "Fourthness," by Herbert Schneider in the 1952
collectio
Joe,
Thank you for offering Schneider's paper to my attention. I haven't read it,
but I've read about it in "Why Triadic" http://www.paulburgess.org/triadic.html
by Paul Burgess. Satisfaction through "scratching an itch" apart from any
summum bonum doesn't seem like verification to me, though S
Sorry, I accidentally omitted part of what Burgess said in his note on
left-right orientation and triadicity in "Why Triadic?". Now included. - Ben
- Original Message -
From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 1:11 PM
Subject
Ben, Jim, list,
I'm going to change the sign posts to BB for me and BU for Ben this time
around
[Bill] I pretty well agree with the following two paragraphs [by Jim, much
further down now -- Ben]. I'd like to make some friendly amendments,
however. I don't think one sign carries more eviden
Bill, Jim, list,
>>>[Bill] I pretty well agree with the following two paragraphs [by Jim, much
>>>further down now -- Ben]. I'd like to make some friendly amendments,
>>>however. I don't think one sign carries more evidential weight than
>>>another, but then I'm not clear on what you mean bec
Sorry. One little correction of a phrase which would otherise be very
confusing. - Ben
- Original Message -
From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum"
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: MS 399.663f On the sign as surrogate
Bill,
Ben, and whatever list members are still reading,
I'm going to do some pruning; if necessary, we can always go back. Again,
BB for me, BU for you
BU: Sorry. One little correction of a phrase which would otherise be very
confusing. - Ben
BU: If we never can apprehend an existent object, t
Bill,
Geez, I think that we're talking mostly past each other at this point. You
don't seem to feel the force of an objection to bad logical regression, in
particular. Whatever philosophy may be, a quintessential philosophical move has
been to apply the philosophical claims to the philosophizin
Ben,
I think you must be right, especially with regard to my not feeling the
force of an objection to bad logical regression. Indeed, I'm not only
insensitive, but too ignorant to see that I've made any incursion into a
logical regression.
Thanks, I'm familiar with Merleau-Ponty. I enjoyed
12 matches
Mail list logo
