[peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about?

[Gary Richmond]

Ben, Joe, List, Ben wrote: I don't know why you don't see it as contradictory and illogical for it not to be a semiotic element. It seems to me that Joe is arguing--as Bernard Morand and I and others have--that whatever is held to be collateral knowledge (brought about by collateral observation and 'held' in memory) was itself produced through a process of triadic semiosis. How else? It is not that one may not need collateral knowledge of something in any given new situation--say a discussion of Hamlet--but the question is what does that collateral knowledge amount to? Certainly at the moment of the discussion it lies beyond the specific semiosis in question (the present discussion), but not beyond all semiois, not, for example, the semiosis which originally produced it (so, while it seems unlikely that 5 year old Grace has collateral knowledge of Hamlet, say, when she gains it it will be through a semiotic process). That is why it seems illogical to me to include your fourth as a semiotic element. Gary --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com