Sungchul, list,
First of all, I want to point out that in the post I am replying to, it
said "Franklin, lists", but it turns out the email was only sent to one
list, Peirce-L. At least, that's what I see. Just thought I'd point that
out.
Second of all, I think I should be perfectly frank with you
Helmut,
The unicorn issue is one that I am uncertain about. There's not much more
to say about it at this point, as I don't recall what CSP had to say about
such things, and I haven't put much thought into it with respect to the
semiotic point of view. One thing I could mention is that Peirce
dist
Hello Franklin, List,
Thank you for taking the time to look at the two diagrams that were attached to
the email. The diagrams are, of course, quite incomplete. There are a large
number of divisions that need to be considered, and the labels on the diagrams
I've offered only contain underdeve
Franklin, lists,
You wrote:
"When we do successfully interpret an index, it is because we have the
collateral information--or common knowledge--that is required to accurately
interpret the index. Otherwise, the index points, but we don't understand.
If we were talking about a symbol, it would be
Supplement: Please dont care too much about my below text, I think I have confused the dynamical object with the final interpretant, besides many other things with each other.
Franklin,
I remember having had the wrong idea, that some signs donot have a dynamical object, and have mentioned
Franklin,
I remember having had the wrong idea, that some signs donot have a dynamical object, and have mentioned the example of a unicorn, and then Clark Goble wrote, that in the unicorn-case the dynamical object is the concept of unicorn, that exists (if I remember it correctly). Of course, thi
Helmut,
To clarify the point about common knowledge and the dynamical object: The
idea there is that in order to understand a sign, we need some sort of
collateral information, which means we need to have had some experience of
the things being signified. To put it more plainly, we need to have ha
Franklin, my responses inserted below.
Gary f.
From: Franklin Ransom [mailto:pragmaticist.lo...@gmail.com]
Sent: 13-Nov-15 15:02
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu 1
Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Terms, Propositions, Arguments
Gary F, list,
Seeing as how discussion has gotten far away from "Vol.2
Franklin,
right! For example, the idea, that a common knowledge can be a dynamical object I had thought to have gotten from a letter to Lady Welby. My idea of self-refering sign, I think, comes from aspects of other theories, like autopoiesis, re-entry, and so on. And to find this aspect subsum
