[peirce-l] Re: Trikonic diagram observation of Peirce's 10 Sign Classes
Dear Gary, You are completly right when you say that each diagram stresses some dimensions of semiotic processes. Indeed, today I would complement that the Icon, Index and Symbol, can be both a classificatory scheme (tree classes) or a dimension in a broader set of classes (10 or more classes). The different but related meanings need a historical understanding of the development of them across Peirce's life to be further studied. At the time I wrote my thesis I did not had a fully appreciation of the implications of this difference. Luiz, ps: (I was away for the most part of the last two weeks.) > Diagrammatic observation can be a valuable adjunct to philosophical > analysis. It seems to me that even this relatively simple trikonic > analysis of Peirce's diagram of the Classification of Signs can offer > some insight into the deep categorial structure of his semeiotic. I > would hope that all valid diagrams (Merkle's, Marty's, Udell's and my > own, for example) would be considered. Peirce suggested once that a > categorial analysis could never be 'wrong' because it only tried to > offer hints and suggestions which might prove valuable. And this is all > I'm offering in the present analysis--what I hope may be helpful "hints > & suggestions." --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Trikonic diagram observation of Peirce's 10 Sign Classes
Dear Luis, Thanks for your comments. While the discussion was taking place on Peirce-l I half thought you'd post something (I could have used your help!) But now I see you were away during the exchange. I think Jean-Marc Orliaguet likes to "debate" while I prefer to "inquire," and I don't think anyone is completely right or wrong as he sometimes suggests is the case (of course, then, he's the one who's right ;-) Anyhow, I continue to learn from studying parts of your dissertation from time to time even if what you say about your not fully appreciating "the implications of this difference" (of the development of semeiotic across Peirce's career) is true. There's a great deal of solid work in your dissertation and not only the great diagrams. Best, Gary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Gary, You are completly right when you say that each diagram stresses some dimensions of semiotic processes. Indeed, today I would complement that the Icon, Index and Symbol, can be both a classificatory scheme (tree classes) or a dimension in a broader set of classes (10 or more classes). The different but related meanings need a historical understanding of the development of them across Peirce's life to be further studied. At the time I wrote my thesis I did not had a fully appreciation of the implications of this difference. Luiz, ps: (I was away for the most part of the last two weeks.) Diagrammatic observation can be a valuable adjunct to philosophical analysis. It seems to me that even this relatively simple trikonic analysis of Peirce's diagram of the Classification of Signs can offer some insight into the deep categorial structure of his semeiotic. I would hope that all valid diagrams (Merkle's, Marty's, Udell's and my own, for example) would be considered. Peirce suggested once that a categorial analysis could never be 'wrong' because it only tried to offer hints and suggestions which might prove valuable. And this is all I'm offering in the present analysis--what I hope may be helpful "hints & suggestions." --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Trikonic diagram observation of Peirce's 10 Sign Classes
Dear Luis and List, Sorry. I thought this was an off-list post. Gary Gary Richmond wrote: Dear Luis, Thanks for your comments. While the discussion was taking place on Peirce-l I half thought you'd post something (I could have used your help!) But now I see you were away during the exchange. I think Jean-Marc Orliaguet likes to "debate" while I prefer to "inquire," and I don't think anyone is completely right or wrong as he sometimes suggests is the case (of course, then, he's the one who's right ;-) Anyhow, I continue to learn from studying parts of your dissertation from time to time even if what you say about your not fully appreciating "the implications of this difference" (of the development of semeiotic across Peirce's career) is true. There's a great deal of solid work in your dissertation and not only the great diagrams. Best, Gary [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Gary, You are completly right when you say that each diagram stresses some dimensions of semiotic processes. Indeed, today I would complement that the Icon, Index and Symbol, can be both a classificatory scheme (tree classes) or a dimension in a broader set of classes (10 or more classes). The different but related meanings need a historical understanding of the development of them across Peirce's life to be further studied. At the time I wrote my thesis I did not had a fully appreciation of the implications of this difference. Luiz, ps: (I was away for the most part of the last two weeks.) Diagrammatic observation can be a valuable adjunct to philosophical analysis. It seems to me that even this relatively simple trikonic analysis of Peirce's diagram of the Classification of Signs can offer some insight into the deep categorial structure of his semeiotic. I would hope that all valid diagrams (Merkle's, Marty's, Udell's and my own, for example) would be considered. Peirce suggested once that a categorial analysis could never be 'wrong' because it only tried to offer hints and suggestions which might prove valuable. And this is all I'm offering in the present analysis--what I hope may be helpful "hints & suggestions." --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
[peirce-l] Re: Trikonic diagram observation of Peirce's 10 Sign Classes
Thanks for the note Gary. Luiz > Dear Luis and List, > > Sorry. I thought this was an off-list post. > > Gary > > Gary Richmond wrote: > >> Dear Luis, >> >> Thanks for your comments. While the discussion was taking place on >> Peirce-l I half thought you'd post something (I could have used your >> help!) But now I see you were away during the exchange. I think >> Jean-Marc Orliaguet likes to "debate" while I prefer to "inquire," and >> I don't think anyone is completely right or wrong as he sometimes >> suggests is the case (of course, then, he's the one who's right ;-) >> Anyhow, I continue to learn from studying parts of your dissertation >> from time to time even if what you say about your not fully >> appreciating "the implications of this difference" (of the development >> of semeiotic across Peirce's career) is true. There's a great deal of >> solid work in your dissertation and not only the great diagrams. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>>Dear Gary, >>> >>>You are completly right when you say that each diagram stresses some >>>dimensions of semiotic processes. >>> >>>Indeed, today I would complement that the Icon, Index and Symbol, can be >>>both a classificatory scheme (tree classes) or a dimension in a broader >>>set of classes (10 or more classes). The different but related meanings >>>need a historical understanding of the development of them across >>> Peirce's >>>life to be further studied. At the time I wrote my thesis I did not had >>> a >>>fully appreciation of the implications of this difference. >>> >>>Luiz, >>> >>>ps: (I was away for the most part of the last two weeks.) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Diagrammatic observation can be a valuable adjunct to philosophical analysis. It seems to me that even this relatively simple trikonic analysis of Peirce's diagram of the Classification of Signs can offer some insight into the deep categorial structure of his semeiotic. I would hope that all valid diagrams (Merkle's, Marty's, Udell's and my own, for example) would be considered. Peirce suggested once that a categorial analysis could never be 'wrong' because it only tried to offer hints and suggestions which might prove valuable. And this is all I'm offering in the present analysis--what I hope may be helpful "hints & suggestions." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>--- >>>Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> >>> >> --- >> Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --- > Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
