Jon AS, Gary F, and Auke, Jon's recent note shows a serious failure in communication: JAS> To be honest, none of this [a quotation by Auke] makes much sense to me, which is not to say that it is incorrect--again, I suspect that it simply reflects my different purpose, different standpoint, and different overall way of thinking. For example, my speculative grammar does not include qualisigns at all... I don't want to pin the blame on anyone. But if three people who studied Peirce's work in great detail can't understand one another, somebody must be deviating quite far from Peirce's foundation. AvB> The object of the collection of qualisigns is the sign that offers itself for interpretation. The object of the pure icon you are writing about has the collection of qualisigns as its object. The object of the pure sinsign is the actually inhering of the qualisign/icon combination in my sheet of semiosis (or mind if you wish) as its object... I find Auke's comments clearer than Jon's, partly because Auke is using words that I learned from Peirce, and Jon's "speculative grammar does not include qualisigns at all." But I believe that this is a very strong reason why we need to take some examples and show how each person's preferred terminology and methods of analysis could explain the semeiotic processes. 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 .
