> On Dec 3, 2015, at 9:31 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > On the other hand, some semioticians say that all ten of the sign types > defined in NDTR, including the Qualisign, are genuine Signs. This flags a > possible ambiguity in the concepts of genuine and degenerate; and possibly > this problem is related to the concepts of embodiment, just introduced, and > of involvement, which is introduced in the next paragraph
I think this gets at exactly the ambiguity that is confusing me in many of these discussions of late. It’s also why I ask people to define their terms since I think we’re often using Peirce’s terminology or terminology that seems obvious but which obscure these subtle ambiguities. While I may be wrong, my sense is that it’s precisely upon these subtle issues that our various disagreements are located. All too often I find myself suspicious that we disagree in these more fundamental considerations but unsure due to the way the discussions proceed. I’ve been unable to read the list for about a week and am just catching up. I see that the discussion of the above, or at least the terminology of sign, continues. I just wanted to point out that in addition to these subtle points it seems much of the debate is largely a semantic one over the applicability of certain terms. It’s not clear to me yet that we have a substantial difference in content.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
