Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the meaning of unity.

List, The argument given in Matt's email below is problematic. I will raise a question and make a brief and casual effort to place a Peircian interpretation on symbolic communication in terms of current scientific terminology. While human language is a very powerful source of human

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the meaning of unity.

On 12/14/15 8:00 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: 1. Mathematical equations can be read as sentences, but when the number of terms is large, the reader must evaluate the individual symbols as units of the whole and as the unity (wholeness of the equation) for the message to be communicated. This

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

On 12/13/15 6:24 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: Human languages differ with respect to the rules of construction and the things that can be said, and they also develop and evolve over time; the development of a language to the point where it can articulate scientific terminology is not a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Matt, Franklin, List, ""Today, it is quite obvious that people living with Stone Age technology speak languages as complex and versatile as those spoken in the most highly industrialized society. *There are no primitive languages*. Virtually no linguist today would disagree with this statement."

Re: [PEIRCE-L] in case you were wondering

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 12:57 AM, John Collier wrote: > > I agree with the connection to the Pragmatic Maxim, especially in its later > formulations, but I am pretty sure that there are even earlier formulations > have a subjunctive component. I just checked and you’re

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of units unify the meaning of unity.

On 12/14/15 8:00 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: List, The argument given in Matt's email below is problematic. I will raise a question and make a brief and casual effort to place a Peircian interpretation on symbolic communication in terms of current scientific terminology. While human

RE: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

List, GF: There is no vagueness in a percept; it’s a singular. So I don’t see how the concept of qualisign can serve the purpose you suggest here. I think the qualisign is simply a necessary result of Peirce’s introduction of the trichotomy of signs based on the sign’s mode of being in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

> On Dec 14, 2015, at 3:08 AM, Matt Faunce wrote: > > On 12/13/15 6:24 PM, Franklin Ransom wrote: >> Human languages differ with respect to the rules of construction and the >> things that can be said, and they also develop and evolve over time; the >> development of a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations

Franklin Ransom is using a discredited analysis of language, referred to as sociolinguistic relativism or determinism, where language defines the knowledge base; i.e., language determines thought. Followers of this linear causality are such as Whorf-Sapir, and Basil Bernstein. It doesn't stand

Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: signs, correlates, and triadic relations

On 12/13/15 9:38 AM, Franklin Ransom wrote: Matt wrote: EP2.227: "perceptual judgments contain general elements," whereas percepts don't. So, if you have a general type (legisign) in mind then you have a perceptual judgment. So, smoke, as understood as being a type, e.g.,