Edwina, I strongly agree. And as I wrote in the thread "Tree structure", I believe that the best way to analyze and explain the issues is to illustrate them with actual examples. He used more examples in his lectures and letters to actual people. But his MSS to himself had very few examples to illustrate the often very complex issues. ET> I'd agree that what Auke is outlining is a very important area of discussion - namely, the nature of the Interpretants in the semiosic process. Yes. And showing the differences by examples is much clearer than an abstract discussion by itself. Just note how widely people quote Peirce's examples, such as his comments about the word 'the'. John
----------------------------- 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 .
