> On Aug 6, 2017, at 2:06 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > As evidence backing up interpretations on CSP's then current main interests, > works at hand, I find Welby correspondence necessarily weak. Not strong, that > is.
Again I’ve not kept carefully up on the nuances of what was innovated when, but it always seemed to me that many subtle aspects of his Welby correspondence illustrated rethinking of some aspects of the sign. Now I’d assume those didn’t originate for the Welby letter but probably represent work done in this general period of 1905 onward. My own position doesn’t appear to be the same as Kirsti’s. While I think he did focus on meaning, I think it was through his work on signs that he attempted to understand meaning. But again I note that I’ve just not paid close attention to the “when” of certain aspects of of the sign that appear in the Welby correspondence. I admittedly am more focused on the 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 .
