Dear Francesco, list,
Peirce said: *That* statue is one piece of granite, and not a Famisign. You said: As an actual piece of granite, *the* statue is obviously an Actisign Is there here a difference between *that* statue and *the* statue? That is, why is the statue an Actisign, and obviously so? Thanks, Jerry R On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 2:24 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> wrote: > List, Jeff: > > On Sep 5, 2018, at 1:43 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> > wrote: > > Following the suggestion that John Sowa has made, I think that an appeal > to Peirce's work in formal logic--especially the later work on the > existential graphs--might provide us with useful tools for making a more > minute analysis of examples. What is more, I think that the application of > such formal tools would be considerably aided if we also employed the tools > of phenomenological analysis when looking at particular cases of > inference--such as when we are looking at the role of the immediate object > in Peirce's discussion with Juliette about the weather. What can we learn > from the existential graphs and phenomenology about the dialogue that is > taking place between the two--and the role of the immediate object in > explaining what it is being conveyed as the conversation progresses from > Juliette's question to Peirce's reply to the decisions she makes about how > to prepare for her day? > > Yours, > > Jeff > > > Your suggestion is an important one. > > I feel that it part of the deeper issue of the role of the concept of > identity in bridging the communications gap between the origin of the sign > and the meaning of the sign for someone who may also be interpreting the > same sign. > > As I have previously noted, the issue of the capability of interpreting a > form of a sign with a form of responding conceptually to the sign, varies > widely. In part, it is a matter of feelings about earlier events which can > trigger recall of similar signs. Such feelings may exist in one observer > but not the other. > > (Metaphorically, the two observers may have elaborated two radically > different sheets of assertion before the sign-event became a shared > experience.) > > 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 > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
