> On Mar 30, 2017, at 6:30 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > But a thing that bothers me about some of the focus of this list is its > isolation from reality; that is, it's all about words and definitions. But > Peirce wasn't focused on that. As John points out, he used his terms in a > variety of ways; - and his focus was on the pragmatism of semiosis. That is > - what is the pragmatic function of Peircean semiosis? > I think the biosemiotic people were focused on practical applications. There are of course lots of semiotic analysis of various sorts of communications out there although this list has never focused on that too much.
But while my own interests are primarily philosophical I’m certainly open to any topic people would like to start. Why not tell us some of your own research? To the definition point, I think especially with philosophical concerns we’re grasping after subtle differences. Often we use the same words to mean different things. That’s especially true when the differences in question (like say the nominalist vs. realist one) have metaphysical implications but only subtle practical differences. That makes language a bit tricky. That’s a large reason why Peirce himself tended, especially in his later periods, to coin neologisms.
----------------------------- 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 .
