Jon, List: > On Feb 2, 2018, at 4:17 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > all of the correlates in this example of semiosis happen to be Existents > (2ns).
In your opinion do you also believe that none of this example of semiosis that are 2ns? > As such, it should not be surprising that our analysis of it resembles "a > simplistic causal sequence”; As I read your highly imaginative narrative, the words you select attempt to use a simple linear ordering to “explain” the fundamental scientific philosophy of the categorizations of pragmatic logic. > hence Edwina's worry about making it out to be "too mechanical.” The simple linear ordering of the five symbols is a mechanical logic, in my opinion. > Furthermore, since Peirce's synechism entails that semiosis is continuous, > rather than discrete, the assignment of terms is indeed arbitrary to a > degree. In fact, that was a source of initial confusion on my part— My only comment would be that it continues to be deep sources of confusion about CSP's notion of symbolization and categorization. Cheers Jerry.
----------------------------- 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 .
