I don’t think Frederik wants to get into an dispute over words any more than I
do.
Howard, to the extent that you’ve clarified what you mean by “the
subject-object dichotomy,” it should be clear that Peircean semiotic has no
problem with that distinction, and uses it as much as any philosoph
Gary F., Howard, lists,
Gary F., regarding this excerpt from your quote of Peirce in "What
Pragmaticism Is",
[] That statue, then, though it is itself single, represents any
one man of whom a certain predicate may be true. It is
_/objectively/_ general. The word “soldier,” whether
Ben, yes, that’s exactly how I read the Peirce quote. The signs “soldier” and
“George Washington” are both general in themselves (i.e. legisigns) and thus
subjectively general because they exist only in replica, as he puts it in Kaina
Stoicheia. But “soldier,” like the statue, is objectively gen
Hi Sung, Lists,
I so far rather think, that firstness is associated to representamen, and secondness to object. So I propose the following assignment, though just in the context of the christian God (because in christian religion there is already a triad, the trinity, which, I think, is ancient s
The classic Christian Trinity triad is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Icon
Index Symbol > Creator, Incarnation, Gift of the Spirit to those with eyes
to see and ears to hear.
Books http://buff.ly/15GfdqU Art: http://buff.ly/1wXAxbl
Gifts: http://buff.ly/1wXADj3
On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Helm
Hi Stephen! But why not assign Father, Son and Holy Spirit to Symbol, Index and Icon (3,2,1)? Because "Eyes to see and ears to hear" to me seems the way an icon is perceived at first.
Von: "Stephen C. Rose"
The classic Christian Trinity triad is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Icon Index Symbol
The First has the mystery and vagueness I would associate with cosmic
creation (aka fatherhood), the Second Jesus 's teaching I would see as a
challenge aka Index Blunt Truth, and Third the Spirit -- the quality of
consciousness that I would associate with a capacity for mindful human
action in lig
Stephen,
Your suggestion seems to agree with the one expressed by Perry Marshall as
follows:
"Father (intent) -> Son (expression) -> Spirit (understanding)
which corresponds to the elements of a Shannon communication system:
Encoder - Message - Decoder
(all of which must be in agreement for
Sounds right to me. Maybe the question, which is firstness and which is thirdness, or which is representamen and which is interpretant, depends on whether one is looking at a process as it is happening or its reconstruction, that is, whether one is going parallel with time with his or her thoughts,
Personally I take continuity literally. Nothing goes back. Truth even is a
continuous process. So a triad begins for me with 1 and goes to 2 and
eventuates in 3 which I see as the end result or sum of the consideration
in the pragmatic maxim. In effect the fruits by which we are known.
Books http:
Look, how in secondary literature the ten classes of signs are explained: The interpretant is always something very far in the past, just as the common sense of something that is interpreted. Well, it- the interpretant- adresses something from the past, but actually it appears in the very present,
At 12:09 PM 5/10/2015, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
I don't think Frederik wants to
get into an dispute over words any more than I do.
HP: Word choice is not the issue. Frederik has explained why Peirce
avoided the words "subject-object."
GF: Howard, to the extent that
you've clarified what you mean by
12 matches
Mail list logo
