Definition and Determination : 14

Re: Peirce List Discussion

I’ve been trying to sort through the explosion of topics and tangents that have arisen over the past month — disruptions in my actual and virtual office spaces have made it hard for me to keep track — I still have the general impression that many things that used to be relatively well understood among Peircean pilgrims are no longer so commonly consensual.

I can almost hear Galadriel’s prologue echoing in my ears …

I’m still not sure how we jumped from relatively simple questions about the meaning of correspondence and determination in Peirce’s definition of triadic sign relations to all the other issues that flared up, and I’m not seeing anything in the late Peirce manuscripts that he didn’t say many times before, perhaps less subtly but rather more concretely and thus more clearly for all that.

By way of trying to get organized again, or maybe just recapping my part before moving on, here are the blog editions of my main comments on these subjects over the past month.

  • Readings On Determination • (0)(1)
  • Readings On Determination • Discussion • (1)(2)(3)
  • Types of Reasoning in C.S. Peirce and Aristotle • (1)(2)
  • Abduction, Deduction, Induction, Analogy, Inquiry • (23)(24)
This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Comprehension, Constraint, Definition, Determination, Extension, Form, Information, Inquiry, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Mathematics, Peirce, Peirce List, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Structure, Triadic Relations and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s